NDLI: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1966 – H.P. Labour and Employment Department Labour Officers Class–II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules Service Law: Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2006 – Conditions of service of public servant – Vacancies arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules –
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law: Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 – H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Class–II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules, 2006 – Conditions of service of public servant – Vacancies arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules – To be filled only as per the old rules or as per the amended rules – Five post of Labour Officer governed by the 1966 Rules, to be filled by promotion – On 20.07.2006, seven additional posts sanctioned for labour officers, and total posts increased from 5 to 12 – Subsequently, the 1966 Rules amended – Under the New Rules of 2006, recruitment to the post of Labour Officer is to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively – Out of the total number of 12 posts, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75 per cent) and direct recruitment posts came to 3 (being 25 per cent) – Respondent no. 1 to 3-Labour Inspector challenged the filling up of 25 percent of the posts by direct recruitment on the ground that the vacancies arose before the promulgation of the New Rules and thus, all the vacancies must be filled only by promotion – On direction by the tribunal, the State govt. considered the grievance and rejected the same – Challenged again before the tribunal – During the pendency, State government called up for applications for filling up the 3 posts of Labour Officers under the quota of direct recruitment – Respondent no. 4 to 6 appointed to the post – Appointments challenged by the respondent no.1 to 3 – Division Bench allowed the petition relying on Rangaiah’s case – On appeal, held : Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose – Statement in Rangaiah that the “vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States, thus, it is overruled – There is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services – Services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest – 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified – There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules – Furthermore, there is no other right that respondents no. 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration – Plea of the Government based on its policy decision to restructure the cadre by creating additional posts and also providing for direct recruitment by amending the rules is accepted – Thus, the judgment of High Court is set aside – Art. 309, 310, 311 – Constitution of India.Constitution of India : Art. 310 – Doctrine of pleasure – Purpose/Object – Stated.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 605
Petitioner	State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Respondent	Raj Kumar & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 15 S.C.R. 847
Judgement Date	2022-05-20
Case Number	9746

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri J. L. Sharma and Anr.

H.p. State Electricity Board Vs. Shri K.r. Gulati

The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan

Jagdish Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of H. P. and Ors.

The General Arunachal Pradesh Group 'C' Driver (Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2006

Mrs. Shakuntala Sharma Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla and Anr.

The Odisha Municipal Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017.

Himachal Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008

M.t. Puttalingappa, Major and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc.

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri J. L. Sharma and Anr.

H.p. State Electricity Board Vs. Shri K.r. Gulati

The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan

Jagdish Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of H. P. and Ors.

The General Arunachal Pradesh Group 'C' Driver (Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2006

Mrs. Shakuntala Sharma Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla and Anr.

The Odisha Municipal Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017.

Himachal Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008

M.t. Puttalingappa, Major and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc.

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.