Promotion Policy in Government Service: Supreme Court Verdict on Flexible Complementing Scheme

The case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Manjurani Routray & Ors. addresses the dispute concerning the promotion policy under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) in government service. The core issue revolved around the validity of Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (In-Situ Promotion under FCS) Rules, 1998, and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring it unconstitutional.

Background of the Case

Manjurani Routray, a Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) at the National Informatics Centre, was eligible for promotion to Scientist E under the FCS. She appeared for interviews in 1999 and 2000 but was not selected, while her juniors were promoted in 2001. Her representations seeking reconsideration were rejected, leading her to file O.A. No. 148 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack.

The CAT, in its order dated 04.05.2005, did not quash the promotions of her juniors but directed the authorities to explain why she was not promoted despite an above-average performance rating.

Dissatisfied with the CAT’s ruling, she filed W.P. (C) No. 7080 of 2005 before the Orissa High Court, which went beyond the pleadings and declared Rule 4(b) of the FCS Rules invalid. The Union of India appealed against this judgment before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Union of India & Ors.)

The Union of India, represented by its counsel, argued:

The respondent’s original case before the CAT never challenged Rule 4(b); hence, the High Court had no jurisdiction to declare it invalid.
The FCS policy is merit-based, not seniority-based, as stated in government guidelines.
The High Court failed to consider that promotion criteria under FCS were already revised post the Sixth Pay Commission and implemented via office memorandums in 2010 and 2016.
The respondent had already been promoted and later superannuated, making the issue non-substantial.

Respondent’s Arguments (Manjurani Routray & Ors.)

The respondent’s counsel countered:

The FCS selection process lacked transparency, as there was no clear justification for denying the respondent a promotion.
Rule 4(b), which assigned high weightage to interviews, was inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings on fair selection processes.
The High Court rightly struck down Rule 4(b) as unconstitutional, aligning it with principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, where excessive interview marks were deemed discriminatory.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court primarily considered whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to strike down Rule 4(b) in the absence of explicit pleadings challenging its validity.

Key Observations

The original application before the CAT and the writ petition before the High Court did not include any challenge to the validity of Rule 4(b).
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by striking down the rule without a proper challenge from the petitioner.
Declaring a rule unconstitutional requires clear pleadings and arguments, allowing the opposing party to rebut, which did not happen in this case.
The respondent was promoted during the pendency of the case and later retired, making the issue moot.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court held:

The Orissa High Court’s order was set aside as it lacked a proper legal basis for striking down Rule 4(b).
The respondent had no further grievance, as she was promoted and had retired.
The decision would not prevent other affected employees from challenging the rule in appropriate legal forums.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces several legal principles:

Courts cannot declare laws unconstitutional unless specifically challenged in pleadings.
Promotion policies must balance transparency and fairness without over-reliance on interviews.
Decisions affecting government employees must adhere to clear procedural norms to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Manjurani Routray & Ors. upholds the necessity of proper legal procedures before declaring rules invalid. While the case highlighted concerns regarding government promotion policies, it reaffirmed that courts must not act beyond the scope of petitions. The judgment ensures that future challenges to such rules must be properly pleaded, giving all parties a fair opportunity to present their case.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: Manjurani Routray & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Place Of Incident: Cuttack.
Judgment Date: 01-09-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: union-of-india-&-ors-vs-manjurani-routray-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-01-09-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category