Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Mr. M.D. Dwivedi, learned Additional Standing Counsel also submitted that applicants do not have vested right to claim appointment contrary to the Statutory rules and respondents can always correct promotion given by wrongly interpreting rules for the appointment. The statutory rules cannot be ignored to perpetuate illegality. Mr. Dwivedi supports the impugned order dated 02.09.2020 of reversion of applicants to the original post of Level-3 and Level- 4 respectively being just and proper.

41. Thus applicants do not have vested right to be appointed on promotion contrary to statutory rules of selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh, reported in (2008) 2 ::23:: OA 312/2020/CAT/PATNA BENCH SCC 750 has settled the legal proposition on the issue involved in present case, reads as:-

Their Lordships, seisin with similar issue whereby erroneous promotion given by wrongly applying the rules. The mistake was corrected by following due process of law. Before person was actually reverted, opportunity was given to show cause why proposed action should not be taken. Thereafter order of reversion was passed. Their Lordships held reads as:-
"32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the Patna mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot Bench ignore statutory rules.