High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23330/2012dismissed

Parambir Singh Duggal v. Union Of India And ORS

2026-02-04Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil14 pages

! "#

$ % &'

# & ) * #* , -,,

../

0, ) #+ ## , ,

2 # 30

)0,

4 ,# ,5 30 , #

#+ 6 # ,* 1 ,

* , # !, ! 30 , !, ! 30 # # 8#+5 4 :&99% !;5

# * +

# # < *# , # , ## .& '/ &999 ) ## = 1, # ( *=+ , && && .'&'

> ## (

## + .''?

#) , 30 , =# ,

*, 30 /

, * 30@ * 7& '7 .'&' #, ) ( * # 30 + # , !, #

.& '% .'&.

*=+

# !, ! 30 # # 8#+5 4 :.'&'

!;5 &7 '? .'&' *+ ,

#+ %

* ) #+ $#

A (0

>'B A (0

) # * , + # ) * * + # # ) + # &'

30 #, .>C./ '9 .'&.

+, , , , A (0

&& = &7 '? .'&' * # # , * &.

*# '9 &' .'&.

&? &' .'&.

30 =, # * , 6) 0 &7 *# = #

) ##* ) + * + 1 , &< *+ #+

&< &/

@ ,# * # ) &> *

0, =, #, .>C./ '9 .'&.

&/ D #, 30 +, !, ! 30 # # 8#+5

)+ , *+ + ) &?

*# = + * #) , 7& '7 .'&' # &7 '? .'&'

( = + &% 1 # *, , , ## .& '/ &999 && && .'&' ,+ , ,

$ ## , #, *, &9 D *# + !, #

.& '% .'&. 30 # ,

7& '7 .'&'

( # + * 1 #, .'

, #, ) + # ( +, # ##* .& D *# = * + # # 6) + >'B $#

#, >'B , A (0

*+ + , ..

A (0

, ) 1# # * , @ # + , *, $ > + ) ) ) *, .7 D , = , # ) 0 )+ *= ## ,#

2,# :

!"# $ %

& '"! .< *# #, *+ #+

&< &/

*2 #+ #+ = # , .> D *# '9 &' .'&.

&? &' .'&. =, * # *+ , * *+ # ./ + #, .>C./ '9 .'&. 1 0 , , A (0

* = + ()*+)*,()

() +-.&/ (/ *-+ + ()0+)*

D ) )+ # #

# !, ! 30 .'&' .% *# = 30 3 - #, , , + + .'&.

*+ #

% ,+ ,+ +, # .9

D *# # , ./ '9 .'&.

## , + # , + * * * # # + ), + # # * + # # # # + ,+E , + * 7'

D *# * 0 * , , + + ) # 7& 6 ,

1+ /( 0+*+2,).*,() 7.

= ) )

* ) #, + 0 ) #+ ) , =# * )

& #, * + # ,, + #)0

#* @ 7& '7 .'&'

( * * *0 @ #) , !( #

) =C * 7& '7 .'&'

6) = ) =# , * ) + # 1 # # 7<

# # ! < = 3 - 30 #* A E ! > = 3 , 30 # #* E + ! / ( # #) # , (

## ## # # # , + 7> + @ + , @ !2 , * $ < +

) *2 # )

' 3 - ) 30 + * 3 #, &9 '& .'&& 3

# 7/ + , *= + 30 , &/ '? .'&.

!E # * 3 - $ < #, .< '% .'&.E + 3 ,

)+ ) ( = * , # , C + # 7?

@ ,# : ;

: !;

1 ) * # =# #) ,E ) # , 1 ,C * *,

= , # + ) #, < / 7%

* @ *# * + ( , + + + 6) * +, + *,

, ) ) # + .'&.

#, ./ '9 .'&.

*0@ # &/ '? .'&.

3@ .< '% .'&.

( 1 0 , ) + ) # ,, # + +

$ 4% .& '/ &999 && && .'&'

*# ## # + , ( , F , = * ,+ * C # 1 * ) * * *0 * &7 '? .'&' @ + + # <'

, #+ + # 2,# #

()(* +, -.)/0)1 2)3*40 5 )6 78.)29:

) #1 + ,, , ) 2,# # , , ,, # #

#G , ,# #+ + , + #+ + * # * #+# #+ +

, # 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

(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 *ndings in these *fteen 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 e,ect that vacancies must necessarily be *lled 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 e,ect, 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. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold; (a) The statement in

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 re0ect 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.

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 O=cers that were sanctioned by an inter>departmental 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 noti*ed. 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.

<& #

$ 4% , ## # *+ * ) ! *+ + #)0 , ) # 0 ( #, @ ,, 1 #+ ) # , + ) , 0 #

* + # # ) * # 0 # ( *# #+ 1 , * , # , , #+

E # # G , # )6 78.)2;4 /)4* 948<2):

# , ,, <7 + + # $ > ?

, #* & .

+ ) #* > ( + # #

+ # # @ ) + # # ( *+ )0 @ , , # << + # * * # * $ < + :) # # # ;

#+ # * ) , , ) # E <>

&< &/

* # ) * # #+ , + # ) *, *0 # * ## ) + #+ # 4

</ @ # # )0 , =#C , # #+ 1 E

@ 0 + 0 ) , #, <?

) * ,+ * C

# 1 #

=+ # * 6 # # *, # <%

, #