Gujarat High Court
High Court Of Gujarat vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 07/07/2025
Pronounced On : 15/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 783 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3524 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR G.M. JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE With
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 27.12.2019 passed in the captioned writ petition being special civil application no.3524 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.2 - original petitioner seeking directions to promote her to the post of registrar, industrial court.
BRIEF FACTS :
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal are as under:Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 2.1. The respondent No.2 - original petitioner was serving as a Superintendent with effect from 01.09.2012 and thereafter, she was transferred from the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad to Industrial Court, Surat on 07.06.2016.
2.2. On 01.12.2017, the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad fell vacant.
2.3. In view of the vacancy, the appellant No.2 - President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, forwarded a proposal to the appellant - High Court of Gujarat for consideration of promotion of the respondent No.2 on the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.
2.4 It appears that thereafter, since nothing was done on the proposal sent by the President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad the respondent No.2 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 inquiring about the said proposal. A communication dated 15.04/05.2018 was addressed by the High Court to the President, Industrial Court intimating that the proposal dated 12.01.2018 was returned by the High Court in view of the promulgation of the new Rules i.e. "the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Non-Judicial Officer and Staff) Rules, 2018". The High Court subsequently rejected the proposal in view of the aforesaid Rules by informing that the incumbent for the post of Registrar in the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts should be a law graduate and shall have five-years experience in the cadre of Registrar, Labour Court and satisfy the combined experience of eight years as Registrar, Labour Court and Bench Clerk, Grade-I. 2.5. Such a response gave a rise to filing of the captioned writ petition by the respondent No.2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the same by following the order dated 24.06.2019 in Special Civil Application No. Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 6231 of 2018 in the case of Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala vs. High Court of Gujarat. It is observed that that when a proposal to promote the petitioner (respondent No.2) was made by the President, Industrial Court to the High Court on 12.01.2018, a vacancy had already arisen, and the respondent No.2 was fully eligible as per the old Rules and since the new Rules came into force, subsequently on 19.04.2018, the respondent No.2 could not have been denied the promotion.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE HIGH COURT :
3. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chintan N. Desai, learned advocate for the appellants, at the outset has submitted that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition primarily by placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra). While inviting the attention of this Court to the facts of the said case, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in applying the judgment rendered in the case of Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra). It is submitted that in the said case, Shri Shethwala was already considered by the department for Promotion Committee thrice and he was selected by the Advisory Committee, after undertaking interview. It is submitted that when the third time, Shri Shethwala was recommended for promotion, the High Court, on its administrative side, had referred the matter to the Committee, as there was some discrepancy and meanwhile, till the decision of the Committee was taken up, Shri Shethwala had already reached the age of retirement. It is submitted that in the present case, the President, Industrial Court, vide letter dated 12.01.2018, has only informed the High Court to consider the case of the respondent No.2 for the purpose of promotion in view of her letter dated 06.12.2017. It is submitted that thus, the decision rendered in the case of Mayank Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra) will not apply in the present case and hence, the learned Single Judge fell in error.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi has further raised an issue with regard to the applicability of the draft Rules in the case of present respondent No.2. It is submitted that when the case of the respondent No.2 was recommended, the Rules of 2018 were at draft stage and they were finalized and notified by the notification issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 19.04.2018, hence, the respondent No.2 was not found eligible. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., (2003) 4 S.C.C. 712. Reliance is also placed on the judgment and order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9555 of 2002. Thus, it is submitted that since the draft Rules were already in existence and they were subsequently informed, the case of the respondent No.2 was rejected.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEE - respondent No.2 :
4. Per contra, Ms.Harshal N. Pandya, learned appearing for the respondent No.2 - original petitioner has urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with at this stage as the same is appropriately passed. She has submitted that the case of the respondent No.2 was recommended in view of the communication dated 12.01.2018 written by the President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad to the High Court for considering the case of the original petitioner to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.
She has submitted that this exercise was undertaken in view of the confidential letter dated 07.01.2015 issued by the High Court. It is Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined submitted that in an identical case i.e. in the case of Shri Shethwala, the High Court had rejected his case for the promotion on the basis of the Draft Rules, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, by an order dated 24.06.2019 and the said order has become final as Shri Shethwala was granted the promotion, whose case was recommended on the basis of the earlier Rules, which were in existence at the relevant time. Thus, she has submitted that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has precisely followed the order passed by this Court in the case of Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra).
5. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya has invited the attention of this Court to the 1994 Rules i.e. The Gujarat Industrial Court Recruitment Rules, 1994 and has submitted that the respondent No.2 fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being promoted to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, however despite the proposal sent on 12.01.2018 to the High Court, nothing was done and ultimately, the case of respondent No.2 was rejected on 15.04/05.2018 by placing reliance on the new Rules of 2018. She has submitted that the reliance placed by the High Court in denying her promotion to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court based on the draft Rules of 2018 was uncalled for and illegal as the vacany had already arisen when the respondent No.2 was in service. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be rejected.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
6. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The facts, which are established from the record, are as under:
(A) The appellant No.2 - President, Industrial Court, recommended the case of the respondent No.2 for the promotion to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad on 12.01.2018, since the vacancy had arisen due to retirement of the incumbent.Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined (B) The said recommendation was made in view of the letter dated 06.12.2017 written by the respondent No.2 to the President.
(C) While recommending the letter dated 12.01.2018, the President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad has recorded that the respondent No.2 was not having seven years experience, as mentioned in Rule 2(a) of the 1994 Rules i.e. requisite experience of seven years, however such experience can be relaxed as she had experience of two-third of the period as specified in Rule 2(a), in the public interest.
(D) The High Court, vide communication dated 05.04/05.2018, rejected the proposal sent by the President, Industrial Court, while placing reliance on the 2018 Rules, promulgated vide notification dated 19.04.2018 by the Legal Department.
7. As per the 1994 Rules, more particularly Rule 2(a), the promotion to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court has to be filled in from the post of Superintendent, Class - III in the Industrial Court who have not less than seven years of experience. The relevant Rule 2(a) of 1994 are as under:
"2. Appointment to the post of Registrar, Industrial Court, shall be made either -
(a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst persons who have worked for not less than seven years on the post of Superintendent, Class-III in the Industrial Court.
Provided that where an appointing authority is satisfied that a person having experience specified in clause (a) is not available for promotion and that it is necessary in the public interest to fill up the post by promotion even of a person having lesser experience, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, promote such person who has experience for a period of not less than two-third of the period specified in clause (a); or"
Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
8. The proposal to appoint to the respondent No.2 was sent by the President, Industrial Court by holding that she fulfilled the eligibility as per the aforesaid Rule. While sending the proposal, it was opined that albeit, the respondent No.2 did not have the requisite seven years experience, the case can be considered by relaxing the experience to two- third in the public interest. The proposal was sent for approval of the High Court. It is not denied that the appropriate authority would be the High Court in sanctioning the approval, and only on the satisfaction of the High Court, after considering all the relevant service details of respondent No.2, the High Court has the authority to either grant sanction or to refuse the proposal.
9. Unquestionably, in the present case, there is no satisfaction recorded by the High Court on the proposal sent. It is pertinent to note that the proposal was sent on 12.01.2018, whereas new Rules were introduced vide notification dated 19.04.2018 i.e. after four months and the said Rules were at the draft stage when the recommendation was made by the President, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad to the High Court for appointing the respondent No.2 on the post of President. As per the 2018 Rules, the Registrar, Industrial Court has to be appointed from the post of Registrar, Labour Court, who shall have five years experience or eight years experience as Registrar, Labour Court and Bench Clerk, Grade-I. Unquestionably, the respondent No.2 is failing in such eligibility.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BETWEEN THE CASE OF SHRI SETHWALA AND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 :
10. Learned Single Judge has primarily placed reliance on the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in the case of Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra), the facts therein appear that he was considered for promotion on Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 04.07.2017 in view of the new Rules - The Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 published vide Notification dated 10.04.2017. He was considered for the post of Deputy Registrar by the Advisory Committee and accordingly, he was orally interviewed on 11.07.2017, and he was recommended on 12.07.2017 for promotion. Due to some policy decision, a fresh willingness was sought for from the candidates aspiring to be promoted to the post of the Registrar. Shri Sethwala responded immediately and gave his willingness by letter dated 23.08.2017. It was for the third time that the petitioner's (i.e. Shri Shethwala) name came to be recommended for the purpose of promotion. The event of the promotion of the petitioner (i.e. Shri Shethwala) did not take place, and attained the age of superannuation to retire on 30.09.2017.
11. Thus, in the case of Shri Shethwala, he had undertaken an oral interview as per the new Rules of 2017 and was thrice recommended for the post of Registrar, but before the promotion could be conferred upon him, he reached the age of superannuation. This quintessential facet is missing in the case of the respondent No.2. The case of the respondent No.2 was recommended under, 1994 Rules, but before any approval was granted by the High Court, new Rules of 2018 were published. Thus, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment and order dated 24.06.2019, in the case of Shri Shethwala, appears to be erroneous.
ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF THE DRAFT RULES OF 2018 :
12. In order to substantiate the submission of applicability of draft Rules, 2018 instead of 1994 Rules, reliance is placed by the appellants on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazoor Panchayat (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court, after considering the judgment in the case of Vimal Kumari vs. Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined State of Haryana, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 114, has held in paragraph No.27, as under:
"It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in their draft stage can be acted upon provided that there is a clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those rules in the near future ."
13. However, subsequently, the foregoing legal principle has been clarified or distinguished by the Supreme Court, which has not been pointed out by either of the parties. The aforementioned judgements were distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Through Government Of Pondicherry vs. V. Ramakrishnan, 2005 (8) S.C.C. 394. The relevant observations are as under:
"3 As has been noticed by this Court in Abraham Jacob and Others V/s. Union of India, 1998 4 SCC 65 and Vimal Kumari V/s. State of Haryana and Others, 1998 4 SCC 114, such draft rules can be acted upon to meet urgent situations when no rule is operating.
24 In High Court of Gujarat and Another V/s. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others, 2003 4 SCC 712, it was observed:
"27. It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in their draft stage can be acted upon provided there is a clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those rules in the near future."
25 But, therein the question as to whether a draft rules can constitute a valid rules or not, did not arise for consideration either in Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) or in Abraham Jacob (supra) and Vimal Kumari (supra).
26 The rules did not become inoperative only because the two scales of pay of the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer became same in terms of revised pay scales. A rule does not become inoperative only because the UPSC says so. A rule validly made even if it has become unworkable unless repealed or replaced by another rule or amended, continue to be in force. As regard, scale of pay, the matter should have been referred to the anomaly removal committee. In terms of the new rules, the criteria prescribed under the old rules were modified. Thus, till the new rules were given effect to, no promotion to the post of Chief Engineer could be effected in derogation to the criteria prescribed under the existing rules.
27 In Dr. Rajinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab and Others, 2001 5 SCC 482, this Court held :
"5. It has not been disputed before us that on the relevant date when Respondent 3 was recommended for promotion, he had not completed 10 years of service within the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined meaning of R. 9-A read with R. 2(2) of the PCMS Class 1 Rules. As Respondent 3 was not possessing the requisite qualifications on the relevant date, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services."
It was further held:
"7. The settled position of law is that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. Following any other course would be disastrous inasmuch as it would deprive the security of tenure and right of equality conferred upon the civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It would be negating the so far accepted service jurisprudence. We are of the firm view that the High Court was not justified in observing that even without the amendment of the Rules, Class II of the service can be treated as Class I only by way of notification. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of Art. 309 of the Constitution."
28 Valid rules made under proviso appended to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India operates so long the said rules are not repealed and replaced. The draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant of promotion, when Rules to the contrary is holding the field. It can safely be assumed that the principle in Abraham Jacob (supra), Vimal Kumari (supra) and Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) that draft Rules can be acted upon, will apply where there are no rules governing the matter and where recruitment is government by departmental instructions or executive orders under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India."
14. Thus, the Supreme Court has clarified that the statutory rules so long are not repealed and replaced tend to operate, and the principle in the cases of Vimal Kumari (supra) and Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) that the draft Rules can be acted upon, will only apply where there are no rules governing the matter and where recruitment is government by departmental instructions or executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. That is not the occurrence in the present case. Hence, the 1994 Rules will tend to operate and hold the field till the new Rules of 2018 are promulgated. Hence, the contention raised by the Appellant about the applicability and enforceability of the draft rule of 2018 in the case of the respondent No.2 does not merit acceptance.
ISSUE OF FILLING UP OF THE VACANCY :
15. However, even after holding and declaring against the appellant to the extent, that the case of the respondent will not be governed by the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined draft Rules of 2018, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned single judge has erred in issuing the directions of considering the case of the respondent for promotion, on the ground of existence of vacancy at the time of sending the proposal to the High Court. Learned Single Judge in order to facilitate the view has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Major General H.M.Singh.VSM (supra).
16. In our opinion, the legal precedent enunciated in the said case will not apply to the facts of the present case, and cannot come to the rescue of the respondent No.2. The distinguishing feature in the case of Major General H.M.Singh.VSM (supra) and the instant case is the phase or period, and the circumstances existing when the recommendation for promotion was made. We may succinctly refer to the facts. The appellant, before the Supreme Court was having a very meritorious and distinguished career in the Indian Army. He was included in the name announced by the President of India for the award of the Vishist Seva Medal on 26.01.2007. The said award was sought to be bestowed upon the appellant, for having rendered distinguished service of an exceptional order to the nation. The appellant had not only held the rank of Major General for more than 18 months, he had also earned two Confidential Reports in the said rank. The record appended to the pleadings indicates, that he had also been granted vigilance clearance. Despite the above, the appellant was not considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General as he had not completed two years' service in the rank of Major General at that time. Further, as the facts suggest that a plea was taken before the Supreme Court that since he was on extension of service, he cannot be granted promotion. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that "The denial of promotion to the appellant mainly for the reason, that the appellant was on extension in service, to our mind, is unsustainable besides being arbitrary, specially in the light of the fact, Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined that the vacancy for which the appellant was clamouring consideration, became available." Before the Supreme Court the issue of filling up the vacancy by the unrepealed Rules or by New Rules had never arisen.
17. Learned Single Judge was impressed with the fact of vacancy available, when the case of the respondent was recommended. Thus, the essential issue, which falls for deliberation, is that as to whether the vacancy of the promotional post can be filled in by applying Rules of 1994 or by the new Rules of 2018. In order to answer the issue, we shall borrow the proposition of law declared by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar And Ors., 2023 (3) S.C.C. 773. The relevant observations on an identical issue are as under:
" 1.xxxx
2. The question is whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules.
xxxx Analysis:
36. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:
1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah's case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.
2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force"
as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates .
Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.
5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases."
18. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court, after considering array of judgements holding contrary field on the analogous question as to whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules, has ultimately, declared that :
(a) There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law, which existed on the date when they arose;
(b) A candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place;
(c) Appointing/recruiting authority is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules;Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
(d) The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the appointing/recruiting authority;
(e) There is no obligation for the appointing/recruiting authority to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14;
(f) When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.
19. Thus, applying the foregoing principles, the case of the respondent No.2 cannot be considered for filling up the vacancy, which had arisen under the 1994 Rules. There is no statutory obligation on the High Court to accord approval to the recommendation made by the President, Industrial Court to appoint the respondent No.2 to the post of Registrar. The respondent No.2 had no vested right to be considered for promotion under the repealed Rules. Even if the case of the respondent No.2 was required to be considered for appointment under the 1994 Rules, then also the High Court had the authority to either accept or reject the proposal after examining the record of the respondent No.2, since the mere recommendation of the President, Industrial Court cannot compel the High Court to accept the same ipso facto. The new Rules of 2018 has been formed for efficient working of the Industrial Court, hence the High Court had the authority to refuse the recommendation. The Supreme court has clarified that in such cases; the only requirement is that the policy decisions must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined touchstone of Article 14. It cannot be even remotely suggested that the High Court by refusing to accept the recommendation for promotion/appointment of the respondent No.2 has acted unreasonably against the tenets of Article 14.
15. On an overall analysis of facts and legal precedent, we are of the opinion, the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Hence, we quash and set aside the same. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/1
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025