Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) who were appointed as Hindi Translators and Telecom Office Assistants in 1988-1989 and later promoted on ad hoc/officiating basis to Assistant Director (Official Language) during 1993-2000. The Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, were notified on 24.12.2002, superseding previous rules and providing for promotions on a one-time measure. Corrigenda were issued in 2003 revising eligibility criteria and pay restrictions. In 2005, the Rajabhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005, were notified, superseding the 2002 Rules but allowing existing ad hoc arrangements to continue. The appellants filed writ petitions in 2005, which were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, leading to a 2010 order directing their promotion under the 2002 Rules. BSNL challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed the petitions in 2011, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court through dismissal of special leave and review petitions. In 2018, BSNL filed review petitions in the High Court after a delay of 2225 days, which were allowed, leading to the restoration and dismissal of the original petitions in 2019, prompting these appeals. The core legal issues were whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its 2011 judgment based on an alleged error apparent on the face of the record, specifically a misreading of the Supreme Court's judgment in BSNL vs. Mishri Lal & Ors., and whether the 2002 Rules were implemented, granting vested rights to the appellants. The appellants argued that the 2002 Rules were acted upon through promotions, pay revisions, and corrigenda, and that Mishri Lal did not declare the rules inoperative, making the review erroneous. BSNL contended that Mishri Lal held the 2002 Rules were never in operation, justifying the review. The Supreme Court analyzed that the High Court misread Mishri Lal, as it did not declare the 2002 Rules inoperative, and found that the 2002 Rules were implemented through specific actions, creating vested rights for the appellants. The court held that the High Court's review was unjustified as there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The decision allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's 2019 order and restoring the 2011 judgment, thereby directing the appellants' promotion under the 2002 Rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Implementation and Vested Rights - Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 - The appellants were promoted on ad hoc/officiating basis under the 2002 Rules, which were acted upon through corrigenda and pay revisions. Held that the 2002 Rules were given effect to, and the appellants acquired vested rights as vacancies arose under those rules, making the High Court's review erroneous. (Paras 5-7, 16-17)
B) Constitutional Law - High Court Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court reviewed its 2011 judgment after 2225 days, citing a misreading of Mishri Lal case. Held that the High Court's finding of an error apparent was incorrect as Mishri Lal did not declare the 2002 Rules inoperative, and the review was unjustified. (Paras 13-15, 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier judgment dated 04.11.2011, which had directed promotion of the appellants under the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, based on a misreading of the Supreme Court's judgment in BSNL vs. Mishri Lal & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 739
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dated 10.10.2019, and restored the High Court's judgment dated 04.11.2011, thereby directing the appellants' promotion under the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record
- vested rights in service law accrue when vacancies arise under existing rules
- recruitment rules must be given effect to when implemented
- misreading of precedent constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record
Case Details
2021 LawText (SC) (9) 141
Civil Appeal Nos.5811-5814/2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.26435-26438/2019), Civil Appeal No.5815-5816/2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14959-60/2021 @ Diary No.41354/2019)
Sri R. Basant, Sri V. Chitambaresh, Sri R. D. Agrawala
Medini. C & Ors. etc. etc., B.H. Sreela
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. etc. etc.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service law dispute regarding promotion of employees under recruitment rules
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought reversal of High Court's order reviewing and dismissing their promotion claims
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by High Court's order dated 10.10.2019 which dismissed their original petitions and set aside Tribunal's order directing promotion under 2002 Rules
Previous Decisions
Tribunal allowed transfer applications on 08.04.2010 directing promotion under 2002 Rules; High Court dismissed challenges on 04.11.2011; Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions and review petitions; High Court allowed review petitions on 07.08.2018 and dismissed original petitions on 10.10.2019
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier judgment dated 04.11.2011 based on a misreading of the Supreme Court's judgment in BSNL vs. Mishri Lal & Ors.
Whether the Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002, were given effect to by the respondents vis-a-vis the appellants
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the High Court erred in reviewing its 2011 judgment as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and that the 2002 Rules were implemented, granting vested rights
Respondents contended that the High Court's review was justified based on the ratio in Mishri Lal, which held the 2002 Rules were never in operation
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's review was unjustified as it misread the precedent in BSNL vs. Mishri Lal & Ors., which did not declare the 2002 Rules inoperative, and the 2002 Rules were implemented through promotions and pay revisions, creating vested rights for the appellants under those rules
Judgment Excerpts
Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition Diary No.41354/2019 is condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave have been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala.
The High Court allowed the review petitions, restored the original petitions and the writ petition on the file of the High Court and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the original petitions.
On restoration, by order dated 10.10.2019, the High Court dismissed the Original and Transferred Applications, set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the Original Petitions.
The appellants were reverted to the post of Junior Hindi Translators, the post to which they had joined earlier with effect from 16.05.2018.
Sri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, drew our attention to the orders passed in the earlier proceedings.
It was urged that the High Court was not correct in holding that it had made an apparent error in coming to the conclusion that the recruitment Rules 2002 was in operation by a misreading paragraph 9 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Mishri Lal.
Sri Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the applicability/ enforceability of the 2002 Rules.
Per contra, Sri R. D. Agrawala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, placed strong reliance on the impugned judgment being in accordance with the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Mishri Lal.
Having regard to the contentions raised by the respective counsel, the crux of the matter in these appeals is, whether, the 2002 Rules were given effect to by the respondents vis-a-vis the appellants herein or not.
Procedural History
Appellants appointed in 1988-1989; promoted ad hoc/officiating during 1993-2000; 2002 Rules notified on 24.12.2002; corrigenda issued in 2003; 2005 Rules notified on 05.08.2005; writ petitions filed in 2005, transferred to Tribunal in 2008; Tribunal allowed applications on 08.04.2010; High Court dismissed challenges on 04.11.2011; Supreme Court dismissed special leave and review petitions; High Court allowed review petitions on 07.08.2018 after 2225 days delay; High Court dismissed original petitions on 10.10.2019; appeals filed to Supreme Court; appellants reverted on 16.05.2018 during pendency
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
