1

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2019      (@ SLP(C) No. 492 of 2017)

RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR.  Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR.                       Respondent(s)     

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Leave granted.

Respondent no. 1 was appointed under the Rajasthan State

Sports Council on the post of Coach Grade-III  on 20 March

1986.  She  was  thereafter  promoted  as  Coach  Grade-II  on  22

February 1990 and as Coach Grade-I on 10 January 1997.

On 27 February 2009, nine persons were promoted to the

post  of  Sports  Officer  from  the  post  of  Coach  Grade-I.

Respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition before the High

Court  against  the  decision  of  the  appellant  to  promote

respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in the year 2003-2004.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by

an order dated 1 April 2015. In appeal, a Division Bench of the

High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2

While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge,

the High Court has observed as follows:

“It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  criteria  of seniority-cum-merit and merit for the purpose of promotion  to  the  post  of  Sports  Officer  was introduced by the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006.  The criteria settled in the year 2006 by no stretch of imagination could have been  made  applicable  for  the  vacancy  that occurred  prior  to  introduction  of  the  Rules aforesaid.”

It is this finding which forms the basis of the ultimate

direction that was issued by the Division Bench of the High

Court to reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion

as Sports Officer against vacancies of the year 2003-2004 by

adopting the criteria applicable at the relevant time.

In order to complete the narration of facts, it would be

necessary to note that the earlier criterion for promotion to

the  post  of  Sports  Officer  prior  to  the  year  2006  was

seniority. Thereafter, the criterion was altered to seniority-

cum-merit and merit. The High Court proceeded on the basis that

the criterion prevalent in 2006 could not have been applied to

prior vacancies.

There is merit in the submission which has been urged on

behalf  of  the  appellants  that  the  respondent  had  no  vested

right  to  promotion  but  only  a  right  to  be  considered  in

accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the

case  for  promotion  was  taken  up.  This  principle  has  been

reiterated in several decisions of this Court. [See H.S. Grewal

3

Vs. Union of India  1  , Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh  2

and State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty  3   and Union of

India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.  4  ]

The judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao  5  dealt

with a situation where the rules required that the promotional

exercise must be completed within the relevant year. Rangaiah’s

case (supra), has hence been  distinguished in the judgments

noted above.

Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service

Rules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the

appellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled

in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which

they have occurred.

Rule 9(4) is in the following terms:-

“The  appointing  authority  shall  determine  the vacancies of earlier years, year  wise which were required  to  be  filled  in  by  promotion,  if  such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in  the  year  in  which  they  were  required  to  be filled in.”

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  direction  which  was

issued by the High Court is unsustainable.     

1 (1997) 11 SCC 758

2 (2011) 6 SCC 725

3 (2017) 3 SCC 646

4 CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019.

5 (1983) 3 SCC 284

4

We, however, clarify that in the event that respondent

No. 1  has been promoted in the meantime in regular course,

this order will not affect the merits of that promotion.

The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed.  The  impugned

judgment of the High Court is set aside.

There shall be no order as to costs.

 ...…...….......………………........J.                                     (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

…...…........……………….…........J.                        (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI,  January 21, 2019

5

ITEM NO.58               COURT NO.11               SECTION XV

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  492/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  23-11-2015 in DBCSA No. 473/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur)

RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR.  Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR.                            Respondent(s)                                                                     Date : 21-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv.

                   Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Utsav, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv.

                   for Mr. P. V. Saravana Raja, AOR                      

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH)                                  BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)