# P. DHARNI & ORS v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 10 S.C.R. 982
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2013
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-dharni-ors-v-govt-of-tamil-nadu-ors-28667
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

Service Law:
c
Promotion - Out-of-turn/accelerated promotion - Claim for
- By Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade II) - To the post of
Regional Transport Officer - Under r.36(b)(ii) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Services Rules - After rendering about
3 years of service - Permissibility - Held: Special rules framed
0 prescribing conditions of eligibility and manner and method
of appointment from the Post of Motor Vehicles Inspector
(Grade II) to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I) and
from the post of Motor Vehicles lnspector(Grade I) to the post
of Regional Transport Officer - The claimant, since not
E fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion stipulated in
Special Rules, would not be entitled to accelerated promotion
under r.36(b)(ii) of the General Rules - Moreover, r.36(b)(ii)
which contemplates accelerated promotion, only in cases
where seniority is the sole criti3rionfor promotion, would not
be applicable to the post of Regional Transport Officer,
F because the appointment on the post is not made by seniority
- Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules -
r.36(b)(ii).
Respondent No.5, an employee on the post of Motor
G Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), after his 3 years of service
on the post, moved a representation seeking his out-of
turn/accelerated promotion to the post of Regional
Transport Officer on the basis of his outstanding
performance in the service. His name was recommended
H
982
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
983
ORS.
for out-of•-turn/accelerated promotion by the authorities
A
of the department citing r.36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules. The claim of the
respondent No.5 was rejected by State Government. The
same was challenged and the Administrative Tribunal
allowing the claim of respondent No.5, directed the State
B
to issue an order promoting respondent No.5 as Regional
Transport Officer. The order was further upheld by High
Court and the appeal thereagainst before Supreme Court
was withdrawn by the State.
The appellants in the present appeal, who were the
C
employees senior to respondent No.5 and whose rights
were liable to ·be prejudicially affected by the accelerated
promotion of respondent No.5, filed appeal to this Court,
challenging the order of accelerated promotion of
respondent No.5.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules leaves no room for any
E
doubt, that in case of repugnancy between the Special
Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules will
prevail over the General Rules. Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil
Nadu State and-Subordinate Services Rules, falls in Part
II - General Rules, is clearly a General Rule. The rules
prescribing the conditions of eligibility and the manner/
method of appointment by promotion from the post of
Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Motor
Vehicles Inspector (Grade I), framed under Section 42 of
the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service, are
Special Rules. The rules prescribing the conditions of G
eligibility and the manner/method of appointment by
transfer to the post of Regional Transport Officer, interalia
out of Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade I), framed under
Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service, are
Special Rules. And, in case of a conflict between the
F
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 10 S.C.R.
A Special Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules
will have an overriding effect over the General Rules.
[Para 21] (1011-B-E]
2. The Special Rule prescribing the minimum period
8 of eligibility for appointment to the post of Regional
Transport Officer, cannot be overlooked while allowing
out-of-turn/accelerated appointment to respondent No. 5,
to the post of Regional Transport Officer. The claim made
by respondent No. 5, for out-of-turn promotion under
Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules, would be valid only if
C respondent no.5, had satisfied the conditions of eligibility
stipulated in the Specia

## Text

_Characters 0–39,783 of 78,329. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39783 for what follows._

A
B
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 982
P. DHARNI & ORS.
v.
GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2013)
JULY 1, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
c
Promotion - Out-of-turn/accelerated promotion - Claim for
- By Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade II) - To the post of
Regional Transport Officer - Under r.36(b)(ii) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Services Rules - After rendering about
3 years of service - Permissibility - Held: Special rules framed
0 prescribing conditions of eligibility and manner and method
of appointment from the Post of Motor Vehicles Inspector
(Grade II) to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I) and
from the post of Motor Vehicles lnspector(Grade I) to the post
of Regional Transport Officer - The claimant, since not
E fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion stipulated in
Special Rules, would not be entitled to accelerated promotion
under r.36(b)(ii) of the General Rules - Moreover, r.36(b)(ii)
which contemplates accelerated promotion, only in cases
where seniority is the sole criti3rionfor promotion, would not
be applicable to the post of Regional Transport Officer,
F because the appointment on the post is not made by seniority
- Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules -
r.36(b)(ii).
Respondent No.5, an employee on the post of Motor
G Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), after his 3 years of service
on the post, moved a representation seeking his out-of
turn/accelerated promotion to the post of Regional
Transport Officer on the basis of his outstanding
performance in the service. His name was recommended
H
982
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
983
ORS.
for out-of•-turn/accelerated promotion by the authorities
A
of the department citing r.36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules. The claim of the
respondent No.5 was rejected by State Government. The
same was challenged and the Administrative Tribunal
allowing the claim of respondent No.5, directed the State
B
to issue an order promoting respondent No.5 as Regional
Transport Officer. The order was further upheld by High
Court and the appeal thereagainst before Supreme Court
was withdrawn by the State.
The appellants in the present appeal, who were the
C
employees senior to respondent No.5 and whose rights
were liable to ·be prejudicially affected by the accelerated
promotion of respondent No.5, filed appeal to this Court,
challenging the order of accelerated promotion of
respondent No.5.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules leaves no room for any
E
doubt, that in case of repugnancy between the Special
Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules will
prevail over the General Rules. Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil
Nadu State and-Subordinate Services Rules, falls in Part
II - General Rules, is clearly a General Rule. The rules
prescribing the conditions of eligibility and the manner/
method of appointment by promotion from the post of
Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Motor
Vehicles Inspector (Grade I), framed under Section 42 of
the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service, are
Special Rules. The rules prescribing the conditions of G
eligibility and the manner/method of appointment by
transfer to the post of Regional Transport Officer, interalia
out of Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade I), framed under
Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service, are
Special Rules. And, in case of a conflict between the
F
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 10 S.C.R.
A Special Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules
will have an overriding effect over the General Rules.
[Para 21] (1011-B-E]
2. The Special Rule prescribing the minimum period
8 of eligibility for appointment to the post of Regional
Transport Officer, cannot be overlooked while allowing
out-of-turn/accelerated appointment to respondent No. 5,
to the post of Regional Transport Officer. The claim made
by respondent No. 5, for out-of-turn promotion under
Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules, would be valid only if
C respondent no.5, had satisfied the conditions of eligibility
stipulated in the Special Rules for appointment to the
post of Regional Transport Officer. In the present case,
respondent No. 5 made a representation claiming out-ofturn/accelerated promotion, only when he had rendered
D just over three years of service as Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade II). At that stage, there was no question
of his being considered for appointment against the post
of Regional Transport Officer, as he had by then, not
rendered even a single days service as Motor Vehicles
E Inspector Grade-I (as against the prescribed five years'
service). Thus at that juncture, he was not even eligible
for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector
(Grade-I), as a minimum of five years' service as Motor
Vehicles Inspector Grade-II is required before such
F promotion. Since a minimum of five years' service as
Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I) is required before an
individual can be appointed to the post of Regional
Transport Officer, it is essential that respondent No. 5
ought to have fulfilled the prescribed condition, before
G claiming appointment as Regional Transport Officer.
Since respondent No.5 could not have legitimately been
promoted to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Gradel) itself, it is out of the question to accept or assume, that
he could have nonetheless been promoted to the post of
H Regional Transport Officer, which required a further five
P. OHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
985
ORS.
years' service. The Special Rules laying down the
A
conditions of eligibility and the manner/method of
promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer,
would stand violated, if the claim of respondent No. 5, for
out-of-turn/accelerated promotion, was to be acceded to.
[Para 25}[1014-G-H; 1015-B-G; 1016-B; 1017-B-D]
B
3. ·Thus, a minimum of ten years service after
appointment as Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade-II) is
required undet the Special Rules, before an individual can
be appointed as Regional Transport Officer (five years'
C
service for promotion as Motor Vehicles Inspector
(Grade-I), snd another five years' service as Motor
Vehicles lns'Pector (Grade-I) before appointment as
Regional Transport Officer). Therefore, that the order
passed by the Administrative Tribunal, as also, by the
High Cou'r! by relying on Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General
D
Rules, was in clear derogation of the Special Ru1es. [Para·
25] [1016-E-F; 1017-D]
4. Clause (ii) of Rule 36(b) of the General Rules, could
have been invoked only in matters where promotions are
E
to be made solely on the basis of seniority. Rule 2(b) of
the Special Rules laying down the manner/method for
promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade
I) clearly mandates, that promotion to the said post,
would be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority
F
being considered only where merit and ability are
approximately equal. It is, therefore apparent, that the
post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I) is a selection
post. That being the undisputed position, it would not
have been possible for the authorities to invoke Rule
G
36(b)(ii) of the General Rules, even for promoting
respondent No. 5, to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector
(Grade I). [Para 27] [1018-F-H; 1'b19-A]
5. Insofar as the post of Regional Transport Officer
is concerned, the Special Rules framed under Section?~ H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 10 S.C.R.
A of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service, laying down the
conditions of eligibility and the manner/method of
appointment to the post of Regional Transport Officer, do
not postulate appointment to the post of Regional
Transport Officer by way of promotion. Rule 2 of the
B Special Rules clearly envisage, that appointment against
the post of Regional Transport Officer, would be made
only by way of transfer, interalia from amongst Motor
Vehicles Inspectors (Grade I). Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General
Rules does not postulate out-of-turn/accelerated
c appointment by way of transfer. Even though the Special
Rules do not lay down the method or manner of making
appointments by way of transfer, Rule 36A (introduced
with effect from 30.1.1996) contained in Part II - 'General
Rules', of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services,
0
postulates, that appointment by transfer shall be made on
grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered
only where merit and ability are approximately equal. In
the aforesaid view of the matter, it is imperative to
conclude, that even for appointments by way of transfer,
the appointing authority must sieve the eligible
E candidates by adopting a process of selection. Since the
post of Regional Transport Officer, is to be filled up by
way of transfer, i.e., by way of selection amongst eligible
candidates, Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules would be
inapplicable. Thus the General Rules contemplate out-ofF turn/accelerated promotion, only in cases where seniority
is the sole criterion for promotion, whereas, the post of
Regional Transport Officer is not to be filled up on the
basis of seniority. [Paras 26 and 27] [1017-F-H; 1018-A;
1019-8-E]
G
6. For onward promotions (from the post of Motor
Vehicles Inspector (Grade II)), the criterion to be adopted
was that of selection. Seniority was only to be taken into
consideration where merit and ability of two eligible
H candidates was found to be approximately equal. Thus
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
987
ORS.
every claim for onward promotion from the post of Motor
A
Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) was liable to be considered
on the basis of merit. Therefore, an individual with
superior merit would steal a march over those less
meritorious. Thus viewed, if respondent No.5, was
actually possessed of outstanding and exceptional merit,
B
as is sought to be suggested, he would have stolen a
march over his seniors even under the existing Special
Rules. Thus viewed, even by the manner/method of
onward progression postulated in the Special Rules, a
person with conspicuous merit and ability (as postulated c
under Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules), would overtake
others without having to invoke Rule 36(b)(ii) of the
General Rules. Respondent No.5, after he had acquired
eligibility for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles
· Inspector (Grade I), he was promoted as such only on
D
10.5.2000. The merit.and ability possessed by respondent
no. 5, is not shown to have resulted in his having
superseded other members of the cadre senior to them.
[Para 28] [1019-G-H; 1020-A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E
4832 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2011 in CP
No. 1688 of 2011 of the High Court of Madras.
F
R. Venkataramani, Guru Krishnakumar, AAG, Lata
Krishnamurti, Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh
Thakur, P.R. Mala, Pranav Diesh, Karan Kalia, Ashish Dixit, R.
Nedumaran, Neelam Singh, Supriya Garg, Shodhan Babu, B.
Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, Veera Mani, Prasana Venkat for the
appearing parties.
G ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted ..
2. The controversy raised in the instant appeal revolves
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A around the genuineness of the claim of respondent no. 5, K.V.
Karthalingan, for promotion from the post of Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Regional Transport Officer.
In order to understand the veracity of the aforesaid claim it
would be relevant to mention, that the post of Motor Vehicles
s Inspector (Grade II) is the lower most entry level post. The post
of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), is filled up only by way
of direct recruitment. Onward promotion therefrom is to the post
of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I). It is not a matter of
dispute, that Special Rules framed under Section 42 of the Tamil
c Nadu Transport Subordinate Service exclusively prescribe the
conditions of eligibility and the manner/method of promotion
from the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post
of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I). The aforesaid rules came
into force with effect from 19.8.1981. The said rules have been
0
made available to us from the Tamil Nadu Service Manual,
Volume Ill. For purposes of the present controversy, a relevant
extract of rules 2, 5 and 9 of the said Special Rules is being
reproduced hereunder:-
"2.
Appointment - (a) Appointment to the category
E
mentioned in column (1) of the table below shall be
made by the methods specified in the
corresponding entries in column (2) thereof:-
G
TABLE
Category
(1)
1. Motor Vehicle
Inspector Grade-I
2. Motor Vehicles
Inspectors Grade - II
Method of Recruitment
(2)
Promotion from Motor
Vehicles Inspector, Grade - II
Direct Recruitments:
(b)
Promotion to· category - 1 shall be made on
grounds of merit and ability, seniority being
considered only where merit and ability are
H
approximately equal.
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
989
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
xxxxxx
xxx
5.
Qualifications - (a) Age-(i) No per shall be eligible
for appointment to category-2 by direct recruitment,
unless he possesses the qualifications specified
A
below, namely :-
B
(1)
Must have completed 21 years of age;
· (2)
Must not have completed 32 years of age :
Provided that a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ c
Scheduled Tribes shall be eligible for appointment by direct
recruitment to category-2 if he has not completed 37 years
of age.
Provided further that the minimum age limit of 21 years
prescribed ab.ova shall apply also to the candidate
D
belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and
Backward Classes.
(ii) The age limit prescribed in this rule shall be reckoned
so far as direct recruits are concerned with reference to
E
the first day of July of the year in which the selection for
appointment is made.
(b)
SI.No.
(1)
1.
Other Qualifications.-No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the category specified in column (1)
by the method specified in column (2) of the table
below unless he possess the qualifications
specified in the corresponding entries in the column
(3) thereof :-
TABLE
Category
Method
Qualification
' (2)
(3)
(4)
Motor
Promotion
i) Must have
Vehicles
served as Motor
F
G
H
990
A
B
c
2.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Inspectors,
Grade-I
Direct
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
Vehicles Inspector,
Grade-II fol a
period of not less
than 5 years and
must be an
approved
probationer in that
category.
Motor
Vehicles
Inspectors
Recruitment xxx
xxx
xxx
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
9.
Preparation of Annual List of approved candidates
- For the pwpose of preparation of the annual list
0
of approved candidates for appointment by
promotion, the crucial date on which the candidates
shall be qualified shall be the 15th March of every
year."
A perusal of the rules extracted hereinabove reveals, that the
E ·post of Motor Vehicles Inspector is to be filled up exclusively
by promotion (Rule 2(a)). The above rules postulate, that merit
and ability would be the criterion for such promotion (Rule 2(b)).
It is also clarified that sefliority would be taken into
consideration, only when merit and ability of the competing
F candidates is found to be almost the same. The above Special
Rules lay down, that Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade II} would
be considered for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade I} only after rendering five years' service (Rule
S(b}}. Eligibility, on the basis of the qualifications prescribed
G for promotion to the posts of Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade
I} is to be determined annually. For the said exercise the cut
off date is 15th of March of every year (Rule 9).
3. It is also relevant to mention, that Special Rules have
H been framed under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
991
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Service for regulating the conditions of eligibility and the
A
manner/method of appointment, inter alia to the post of
Regional Transport Officer. Under the above rules, the post of
Regional Transport Officer can be filled up only by way of
transfer. The above Special Rules came into force with effect
from 15.9.1974. The same have been made available to us,
B
from the Tamil Nadu Service Manual, Volume II. Releyant
extracts of Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the above Special Rules, which
have a bearing on the present controversy, and are being
reproduced hereL1nder:-
"2.
c
Appointment.-(a) Appointment to these categories
shall be as follows :
Category
Method of Appointment
(1)
(2)
D
Category-1 : Deputy Transport
1) By promotion
Commissioner
from category-2; or
2) For special reasons
by recruitment by transfer
E '
Category-2: (1) Regional
Transport Officer
and Additional
Transport Officer
from any other service on
tenure basis. ·
1) By recruitment
by transfer from
among~
(2) Assistant
(i) Motor Vehicles
Secretary State
Inspectors, Grade-I
F
Transport Authority in the Tamil
G
Nadu Transport·.
·Subordinate Service; or
(ii) Superintendents,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 10 S.C.R.
Selection Grade and
Personal Assistant to
Regional Transport Officers,
in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service;
(or)
(2)
For special
reasons
by
recruitment by transfer from any other
service on tenure basis;
(3) Appointment of an Officer on
tenure basis from any State
Transport
Undertakings.
(b)
Promotion to Category-I shall be made on grounds
of merit and ability, seniority being considered only
where merit and ability of competing candidates
are approximately equal.
(c)
The posts in category 2 other than those filled up
by recruitment by transfer from any other service on
a tenure basis shall be filled up by rotation, the first,
second, fourth and fifth vacancies being filled up by
recruitment by transfer from among Motor Vehicles
Inspectors, Grade I, and the third vacancy being
filled up by recruitment by transfer from
Superintendents in the Selection Grade and
Personal Assistants to Regional Transport Officers
in the Ministerial Service :
Provided that this rotation shall be followed in respect of
appointments made on and from the 26th June 1978 :
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
993
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Provided further that the temporary appointments to
A
Category-2 made on and from the 15th September 1974
to the 25th June 1978 shall be regulated in the proportion
of 1 : 1 between Motor Vehicles Inspectors, Grading - I,
and Superintendents, Selection Grade, including Personal
Assistants to Regional Transport Officers in the Ministerial s
Service.
3.
Qualification:- No persons holding the post
specified in Column (2) of the Table below, shall be
eligible for appointment to the category specified
C
in column (1) unless he posses the qualifications
specified in column (3) thereof :
TABLE
CATEGORY
(1)
Category - 1
Deputy
Transport
Commissioner
Category-2
(1) Regional
Transport
Officer and
Additional
Regional
Transport
Officer.
POST
(2)
1. Regional
Transport Officer
and Additional
Regional
Transport Officer
2. Assistant
Secretary, State
Transport Authority
Motor Vehicles
Inspector, Grade-I
QUALIFICATION
(3)
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
Must have
served for a
total period of
not less than
five years as
Motor Vehicles
Inspector, Grade-I
out of which
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
(2) Assistant
Secretary
State Transport
Authority
Superintendents,
Selection Grade
and Personal
Assistants to the
Regional Transport
Officers
not less than two
years must be in a
field office
Must have served
for a total period
of not less than
five years as
Superintendent or
a Personal
Assistant to the
Regional
Transport Officer
of which not less
than two years
shall be as a
Personal
Assistant to
Regional
Transport Officer.
Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to
appointments prior to the date of 1st July 1978.
6
Preparation of Annual List of Approved Candidates
- A list of approved candidates for appointmeQt by
promotion to Category 1 and recruitment by
transfer to category 2 shall be prepared every year:·
The crucial date for inclusion in the panel of all
eligible officers for such appointment shall be the
1st .July of the year in which the selection for
appointment is made."
G A perusal of the rules extracted above reveal, that appointment
to the post of Regional Transport Officer is to be made only by
way of transfer, interalia, from all"\ongst Motor Vehicles
Inspectors (Grade I) (Rule 2(a)). Appoin\ment by way of transfer
to the post of Regional Transport Officer from other services,
H (including the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade-I) is to
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
995
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
be only on tenure basis (Rule 2(c)). It is significant to notice,
A
that to be ·eligible for appointment to the post of Regional
Transport Officer (from amongst Motor Vehicle Inspectors
(Grade I}), the incumbent in question must have served for a
total period of not less than five years as Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade I), out of which not less than two years must
B
be in a field office (Rule 3). Eligibility, on the basis of the
qualifications prescribed for transfer to the post of Regional
Transport Officer, is to be determined annually. For the said
.exercise, the cut off date stipulated under the Special Rules is
1st July of every year (Rule 6).
c
4. The career of respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, in
the Tran.sport Department of the State Government commenced
on his appointment by direct recruitment as Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade II), on 9.2.1995. While serving as Motor
Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), he claimed that he had detected
D
on a single date 14 cases of passenger vans being used as
public careers. He asserted, that he had seized the concerned
vehicles, whose owners were evading payment' of tax (to th!3
Transport Department). He also asserted, that he had detected
. irregularities being committed by certain dealers, for evading
E
revenue (payable to the Transport Department). He also
claimed to have detected various instances where dealers
were found meddling with chassis numbers of vehicles. By a
process of tempering, chassis numbers were being altered, by
the dealers. According to respondent no. 5, his actions had
F
resulted. in bringing to book, numerous persons evading
payment of tax to the Transport Department. According to
respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, the above actions were
taken by him despite grave personal risks. In this behalf, it was
his assertion, that he had received a number of threatening
G
letters, for having revealed the aforesaid irregularities. In the
above letters he was threatened, that he would be eliminated.
Despite rece)Pt of such letters, respondent no. 5 claims to have
continued to discharge his duties with dedication and devotion.
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 10 S.C.R.
A
5. In appreciation of the above alleged exemplary devotion
of duty displayed by respondent no. 5, the Managing Director
of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam
Division-1, as well as, the Managing Director of Cholan
Roadways Corporation, recommended the name of respondent
B no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for accelerated/out of turn promotion
as Reg ion a I Transport Officer. On 26. 9.1997, having
considered the recommendations made by the Managing
Directors (referred to above), the Regional Transport Officer by
citing Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
c Services Rules, also recommended the claim of respondent no.
5 for out of turn/accelerated promotion. The Deputy Transport
Commissioner, Trichy, on 10.7.1998, having considered the
above recommendations, endorsed the claim of respondent no.
5, K.V. Karthalingan, for accelerated/out of turn promotion, to
D the Commissioner of Transport, Chennai. In order to appreciate
the recommendation made on 26.9.1997 by the Regional
Transport Officer, it is essential to extract hereunder Rules 36
and 36A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
Rules, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1955. It was
E pointed out, that the above rules were framed in exercise of
powers conferred by the proviso under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The said rules are reproduced below :-
"36. (a) Promotion - No member of a service or class
of a service shall be eligible for promotion from the
F
category in which he was appointed to the service
unless he has satisfactorily completed his probation
in that category:
G
H
Provided that a member of a service or class of a
service who, having satisfactorily completed his probation
in the category in which he was appointed to the service,
has been promoted to the next higher category shall,
notwithstanding that he has not been declared to have
satisfactorily completed his probation in such higher
category be eligible for promotion from such higher
P. DHARN·I & .ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 997
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
category:
Provided further that if scales of pay of posts in the
feeder categories are different, the persons holding post
carrying a higher scale of pay in the feeder category shall
be considered first and that, if no qualified and suitable
persons holding post in that feeder category are available,
the persons holding post carrying the next higher scale of
pay in descending order in other feeder categories shall
be considered.
A
B
(b)
(i) Promotions to selection category or grade.-
C
Promotions in a service or class to a selection
category or to a selectipn grade shall be made on
grounds of merit and ability, seniority, being
considered only where merit and ability are
approximately equal. The inter-se-seniority among
D
the persons found suitable for such promotion shall
be with reference to the inter-se-seniority of such
persons in the lower post.
(ii)
Promotion according to seniority-All other
E
promotions shall, be made in accordance with
seniority unless-
(1)
the promotion of a Member has been
withheld as a penalty, or
(2)
a Member is given special promotion for
conspicuous merit and ability.
(c) Appointment of a member to higher category not
to be considered if he had been on leave for three
F
or four years or more continuously.-Notwithstanding
G
anything contained in sub-rules (a) and (b), a
member of a service who had been on leave for a
period of three years continuously for any reason
except higher studies or for a period of four years
continuously for higher studies, shall not be
H
A
B
c
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 10 S.C.R.
considered for appointment as a higher category
either by promotion or by recruitment by transfer
unless he has completed service for a period of one
year from the date on which he joins duty on return
from leave.
36A. Appointment by Recruitment by Transfer.-
Appointments by recruitment by transfer to a class or
category in a State Service from among the holders of
posts in a Subordinate Service, shall be made on grounds
of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where
merit and ability are approximately equal."
6. Whilst it is the claim of respondent no. 5, that he had a
genuine. claim for out of turn/accelerated promotion under Rule
36(b)(ii), it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
D for the appellants before us, that the aforesaid rule could neither
be invoked for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles
Inspector (Grade I) nor for appointment by way of transfer to
the post of Regional Transport Officer.
E
7. Before examining the merits of the controversy, it will
be essential for us to narrate the sequence of events leading
to the direction by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), for promoting
respondent no.5, K.V. Karthalingan, to the post of Regional
Transport Officer. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
F concerned, it would be relevant to mention, that respondent no.
5 addressed a representation dated 30.6.1998 seeking out of
turn/accelerated promotion. For his instant prayer, he sought
consideration of his sincere, efficient and unblemished record
of service, detailed above. On receipt of the aforesaid
G representation, relying on the recommendation made by the
Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Kumbakonam Division-1 and Managing Director
of Cholan Roadways Corporation, on 26.9.1997 the Regional
Transport Officer, also recommended the claim of respondent
H no. 5. Thereupon, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy,
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
999
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
on 10.7.1998, further recommended respondent no. 5, K.V.
A
Karthalingan, for accelerated promotion, to the Commissioner
of Transport, Chennai.
8. De_spite the above recommendations, no action was
taken by the authorities. It is, therefore, that respondent no. 5,
8
K.V. Karthalingan, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal,· at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as, the
Administrative Tribunal), by filing Original Application no. 5918
of 1998. The aforesaid Original Application was disposed of
by an order dated 6.11.1998, without issuing notice to the
C
respondents. A perusal of the order dated 6.11.1998 reveals,
that the Transport Secretary of the State Government, was
directed to pass orders on the recommendations made by the
Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy dated 10.7.1998.
9. Consequent upon the issuance of the above directions,
the State Government passed an order dated 8.12.1998. By
the instant order, the claim of the respondent no. 5 K.V.
Karthalingan, for out of turn/accelerated promotion came to be
rejected. While rejecting the prayer of respondent no. 5, the
State Government recorded, interalia, the following reasons:-
"2. The government have examined the representation of
Mr. V. Kathalingam, taking into consideration of the
direction the Hon'ble (Tribunal). (The) Tamil Nadu Transport
Subordinate Service do not provide for out of turn or
accelerated promotion. Besides, there is no merit in the
claim of the petitioner. Instances of extraordinary services
quoted by him are common in Transport Department as
well as in Civil Service.
D
E
F
3. Accordingly, the Government rejects the request of Mr.
G
Kathalingam, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-II for
accelerated Promotion."
A perusal of the order passed by the State Government
reveals, that the rules regulating the conditions of service of
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A respondent no. 5 do not provide for an avenue for out of turn/
accelerated promotion. The State Government also arrived at
the conclusion, that the instances of extraordinary service relied
upon by respondent no. 5 (to claim out of turn/accelerated
promotion), could not be treated as exceptional or
B unprecedented, because such instances were common in the
Transport Department.
10. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Government
dated 8.12.1998, respondent no. 5 preferred Original
Application no. 429 of 2002 before the Administrative Tribunal.
C The aforesaid Original Application was allowed by the
Administrative Tribunal vide an order dated 10.7.2002. In the
instant matter, the Administrative Tribunal had issued notice to
the respondents (i.e, different functionaries of the State
Government). The respondents were duly served. But the matter
D was disposed of without waiting for a reply from them. While
allowing the aforesaid application, even though the State
Government while rejecting the claim of respondent no. 5 vide
order dated 8.12.1998 had recorded that the instances
indicated by him for out of turn/accelerated promotion, could
E not be treated as exceptional or extraordinary, the
Administrative Tribunal held that the same constituted
conspicuous merit and ability, and were sufficient to earn
respondent no.5, K.V. Karthalingan, out of turn/accelerated
promotion as_ Regional Transport Officer. In its aforesaid
F determination, the Administrative Tribunal recorded the
G
H
following observations:-
"5. The rejection order is found in G.O.Ms. No.2535 Home
(Transport II) Department, dated 8.12.1998. There is no
dispute about the extraordinary performance of the
petitioner. In one of the leading English Journals circulated
in Tamil Nadu, the publication is to the following effect :
"Parambalur October 31 Instance of dealers in twowheelers illegally altering the chassis and
registration numbers of vehicles to distribute
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
1001
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
vehicles with numbers as desired by the clients
A
have come to light during inspections here.
On July 18, a two-wheeler with the chassis number
A 606 F 376242 was brought to the office of motor
vehicle Inspector here. During the Inspection the
digit '6' in the chassis number was found
repunched. Following this the inspector verified the
papers relating to the vehicle issued by a local
dealer. It came to light that as per the invoice issued
B
by the manufacturers of June 8, 1996, the chassis
C
number was A 606 F 3708242 and the vehicle has
been registered from June 10. The Inspector found
that the digit '6' had been repunched in lieu of 'O'.
Consequently, the Inspector has reportedly written
to the manufacturers and the Regional Transport
D
Officer recommending cancellation of the grade
licence issued to the dealer.
Instance of meddling with th_e chasis number were
also found in the vehicle brought for registration on
earlier occasions. The digiJs 'O' '3' and '1' were
found tampered to read as '6', '8' and '7'.
The Inspector has sent letters to the individual
owners calling for explanation. The replied were
similar. We parted with a bribe of Rs.2300 to avoid
registration numbers totaling fo '8' but the Vehicles
allotted to us carried numbers totaling to '8' only.
We returned the vehicles and after a few days got
vehicles with fresh registration numbers.
It is said though it is three months since the
irregularity was detected, no action has been taken
so far. On the contrary the Inspector who detected
the irregularity has reportedly received threat letters
from a number of sources."
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A
6. There is already a direction from this Tribunal in O.A.
No.5918 of 1998 to consider the case of the petitioner and
pass orders. Accordingly the government has passed
orders rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that
special rules for Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service
B
do not provide for out of turn for accelerated promotion.
c
D
E
F
7. Mr. P. Jayaraman, Senior Counsel relied upon General
Rule 36(b)(2). It reads as follows :-
"Promotion according to seniority:-
All the other promotion shall be made in accordance
with seniority unless :
(i) The promotion of a member shall be withheld as
a penalty or
(ii) A member is given special promotion for
conspicuous merit and ability.
By this Sub-rule (ii), there is an implication for grant of
special promotion for conspicuous merit and ability. In this
case, it is not disputed that the petitioners has rendered
meritorious service. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the
petitioner on the ground that there are no rules is not
proper. Hence the rejection order is set aside. The
petitioner shall be given promotion as Regional Transport
Officer. The orders shall be passed within a period of six
months from today."
A perusal of the determination rendered by the Administrative
Tribunal reveals, that a clear and categorical finding was
G recorded by it, that there was no dispute about the extraordinary
performance of respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan. Reliance
was also placed on Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules to conclude, that the claim of
respondent no. 5 for out of turn/accelerated promotion could
H have validly been considered under Rule 36(b)(ii) of the
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU &
1003
ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
General Rules. Having recorded the aforesaid factual finding,
A
as also having concluded that there was a statutory provision
whereunder the claim of respondent no. 5 for out of turn/
accelerated promotion could be granted, the Administrative
Tribunal directed the respondents, to issue an order promoting
the respondent no. 5 as Regional Transport Officer, within a
B
period of six months (from the date of the order dated
10.7.2002).
11. Now that respondent no. 5 had succeeded before the
Administrative Tribunal, the State Government filed Writ Petition
C
(Civil) no. 21562 of 2003 before the High Court, to assail the
order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 10.7.2002
(whereby respondent no. 5 was directed to be promoted to the
post of Regional Transport Officer). The instant challenge raised
by the State Government did not achieve the desired purpose,
inasmuch as, the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed
D
by an order dated 13.10.2004. In paragraph 2 of the order
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, on a
consideration of the instances relied upon by respondent no.
5, as also, the recommendations made by the Managing
Directors of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam
E
Division-1 and Cholan Roadways Corporation, and th~
recommendation made by the Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Trichy, dated 10.7.1998, it came to be concluded, that
respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, was entitled to out of turn/
accelerated promotion. The High Court also took into
F
consideration Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules, and on the basis thereof held, that
lhe statutory rules regulating the conditions of service of
respondent no. 5, provided for out of turn/accelerated
promotion, based on meritorious/outstanding service. Having
G
so concluded, the High Court also expressed the view, that there
was nothing in the Special Rules (the rules framed under
Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service,
and/or Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service), that
was repugnant to the General Rules (the Tamil Nadu State and
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A Subordinate Service Rules) providing for accelerated
promotion. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the order passed
by the Administrative Tribunal. The High Court while disposing
of Writ Petition (Civil) no. 21562 of 2003, directed the State
Government (i.e. the petitioners before the High Court) to
B implement the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal,
within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the High
Court order.
12. Aggrieved with the decision rendered by the High Court
in Writ Petition no. 21562 of 2003 (decided on 13.10.2004),
C the State Government filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) bearing no. 11538 of 2005. Besides the above petition
filed by the State Government before this Court, one P. Mani
also approached this Court by filing Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) bearing no. 11542 of 2005, for assailing the
D order of the High Court dated 13.10.2004. Both the above
mentioned petitions were withdrawn by the State Government,
as also, by the said P. Mani, on 7.7.2006. As a result of the
withdrawal of the aforesaid petitions, the order passed by the
High Court on 13.10.2004 directing the State Government to
E promote respondent no. 5 to the post of Regional Transport
Officer, attained finality.
13. Despite the above legal position, namely, that the order
of the High Court dated 13.10.2004 had attained finality, the
F State Government did not implement the order passed on
10.7.2002 (in O.A. no. 429 of 2002) by the Administrative
Tribunal, or the order passed by the High Court dated
13.10.2004 (in Writ Petition No.21562 of 2003). It is in the
aforesaid background, that respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan,
filed Contempt Petition no.