High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2634/2019dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. Union Of India And Others

2026-02-09Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,Mr. Justice Vikas Suri9 pages

!"#"$%&&

$'"

("$)* &&&&

"$ + , +#-#

$"$ $."

$. * +# &&&&

#/$.

$ # 0% 120 & ( (0 (( 120 & (,3((

+ # $ %

!" #$ %%%%

& '(##() * + ,- ./ &

0. 1 * 2

0.- ./ 3 &

()('#(4 & "0 & .

/ .

# .& 6 3 . 3 /.

& . .

6 3 & & ! !

3 5 78.

456(5 .

6 3 .

+ &.

&0 .&

9 &3 ::4,:::

9& 3 $(;#((( .

& + &&&&!3

+ &< .& 3 3 .

& 33 / ()('#(4 0. &

' .&

&! 9 =+ &

"0 & .

+9&! .

+ 3 3 & .

& 3 3 9 .

$ .

.& &3 .

./ / 30 .&

! ./ &!3+ 3 &!3& ./

& .

& "0 & & / .

/& +

& &

&!&

; .& 3 3

+ /.

3 3 & 3 &3

& + 3 / 3 +.// &> 3 6 ?3 3 ./ 78. '( )* /.

. 33./ 78. "7"8//

8&9

+( ,-)

#((;#(## 4 @

3 . A B/ &3 .

#(4qua

& .

& ::4:::B & 33

3 3

/ #((( ) .

# &

0.:);&/.

3 &3 #(43 & .

/ : C 3 & /&

& ::4:::&

"0 & .

6 & ::4,::: .

&"&

6 3 + #(((3

3 ( 3 /.

./ 78.

,-)'( )*0 5 D, "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:

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.

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 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The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, Para 26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 319, Para 10. Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, Para 26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 319, Para 10.

&.&

Policy decision taken by the Government. 60 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.61 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.

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.

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.

37.1 The above9referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah's case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered9down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that K. Ramulu v. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59, Paras 12 and 13, Shyam Chandra Das v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC 218, Para 9, State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, (2007) 10 SCC 402, Para 38; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, Para 28. G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 455, Para 4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Charan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202, Para 15; K. Ramulu v. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59, Para 15. In Delhi Judicial Services Association v. Delhi High Court, (2001) 5 SCC 145, Para 5. Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, Para 25 existed on the date when they arose. This only implies

& &

that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. 37.2 The decision in Deepak Agarwal (supra) is a complete departure from the principle in Rangaiah, in as much as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar (supra). In fact, in Krishna Kumar Court held that there is only a "right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion take place." 37.

3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that 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, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indicated hereinabove.

(a) The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao 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 under part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.

(b) The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. Application of the principle to the facts of the present case:

&/&

38.1 Returning to the facts of the present case, we have noticed that the High Court has proceeded on the premise that the vacancies occurring before the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006 must be governed by the 1966 Rules. The decision of the High Court took within its sweep even the 7 new posts of Labour Officers that were sanctioned by an inter9departmental letter dated 20.07.2006, which included even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment. The direction of the High Court to encompass even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment was on the ground that the posts were sanctioned on 20.07.2006, which is prior to the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006. 38.2 We have already held that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services.

We have also followed and applied the Constitution Bench decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (supra) and more particularly the decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (supra) that the 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. The 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. The matter must end here. There is no other right that Respondents no. 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration."

. . 3 3 78.

/ 6

. .

& .

6 3 . 3 / 7

& 6 3 . ::4 .

. 9

3 #((( #

+3.

&0&

/ 3

&&& &! #(((3 !

. &&&&! ' B & !

+ +

& &/ . /& + &

0 5 78. "7"8 //

8&55

###(#.

& .

& &

5 D, >7.1 The learned Single Judge thereafter while quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 has issued the writ of mandamus commanding or directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service, which as such was permissible under Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006. The word used in the Rule 4 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 is "MAY". Therefore, the relaxation may be at the discretion of the competent authority. The relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right. If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service.

Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service. Consequently, the High Court has also erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.

&%&

Rules, 2006. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are not sustainable in law."

$ B .

. &&&&!+ .

3 &&&9&! .

& E & . ; C 3 .

./ 0. .

"0 &

& 4

3 . / ('(##() * + ,- ./ 0..

3 & / ./ & A / 3 & ) *-/ 4 (0 ((6 JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) February 09, 2026 JUDGE Varinder @ ! =

@ .