Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma and Dr. M.K. Ravi, Advs v. UOI ORS

Through: Mr. K.S. Rama Rao, Adv. versus UOI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Ms. Aishani Mohan, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs. for R-3/UPSC. Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma and Dr. M.K. Ravi, Advs. for R-4 & 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 W.P.(C) 3091/2007 & W.P.(C) 9132/2007 % JUDGMENT (ORAL)

16.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Both these writ petitions are directed against judgment dated 16 March 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2498 of 2005.

2. The issue before the Tribunal related to promotions to the grade of Principal Private Secretary in the Armed Forces Headquarters. The promotions were made in respect of vacancies which had arisen in 2003-2004. The contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that the earlier applicable Armed Forces Headquarters Stenographers’ Service (Private Secretary Grade) Rules, 19902 had been superseded by the Armed Forces Headquarters Stenographers’ (Group A and Group B posts) Service Rules, 20043 and that, as the DPC had met on 12 October 2004, the 2004 Rules ought to have been applied by the DPC. Instead, the DPC applied the 1990 Rules which, according to the applicants before the Tribunal, was erroneous.

3. The Supreme Court had, in its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v J. Sreenivasa Rao4, held that the rules which are applicable would be the rules which are in force on the date when the vacancies arose. A sole 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 2 “the 1990 Rules”, hereinafter 3 “the 2004 Rules”, hereinafter 4 (1983) 3 SCC 284 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 W.P.(C) 3091/2007 & W.P.(C) 9132/2007 relaxation to this principle was engrafted by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in K. Ramulu v Suryaprakash Das5, in a case where there was a conscious decision to defer the holding of the DPC either awaiting amendment of the rules or for any other reason. The Supreme Court held that, in such a circumstance, the Rangaiah principle would not apply.

4. The Tribunal has held, in the impugned judgment, that the case is covered by Rangaiah and that, as the vacancies considered by the DPC arose prior to the coming into effect of the 2004 Rules, the DPC had correctly applied the 1990 Rules.

5. This conclusion is predicated on the premise, which flows from Rangaiah, that the rules which would apply would be those in effect on the date when the vacancies arose.

6. Rangaiah, however, has since been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v Raj Kumar6.

7. As such, it may not be possible to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court which is predicated on Rangaiah. However, as Raj Kumar has been rendered recently in 2023, much after the impugned judgment came to be pronounced, we, with consent of parties, deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16 March 2007 passed by the Tribunal and