{"id":267324,"date":"2022-05-24T13:00:52","date_gmt":"2022-05-24T07:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=267324"},"modified":"2022-05-27T09:23:52","modified_gmt":"2022-05-27T03:53:52","slug":"vacancies-filling-up-rules-governing-state-employee-rangaiah-overruled-labour-service-law-supreme-court-judgments-legal-research-updates-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/24\/vacancies-filling-up-rules-governing-state-employee-rangaiah-overruled-labour-service-law-supreme-court-judgments-legal-research-updates-news\/","title":{"rendered":"No universal rule to fill vacancies on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose; Supreme Court overrules 1983’s YV Rangaiah ruling\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha*, JJ has overruled the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284<\/a><\/strong> wherein it was held that, \u201cthe vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules\u201d. <\/em>The Court held that the same does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution as 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Issue<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules?<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Noticing that a number of decisions have followed Rangaiah<\/a> on the question at hand but far more decisions have distinguished it, the Court decided to examine the issue afresh and came to the conclusion that the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah<\/a> did not reflect the correct constitutional position. The Court observed that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe principle in Rangaiah<\/em>\u2019<\/a>s case has given rise to a number of decisions, most of them have disapplied Rangaiah<\/em> and have in fact, watered-down the principle while distinguishing it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What was held in Rangaiah?<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/h4>\n

The question that arose in Rangaiah<\/a>\u2019s case related to the mandatory obligation under the old rules to prepare an approved list of candidates and also the number of persons to be placed in the list as per the vacancies available. It is in this context that the Court observed that the vacancies would be governed by the old rules.<\/p>\n

The Court, hence, in the present case, observed,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis decision is not to be taken to be laying down an invariable principle that vacancies occurring prior to the amendment of the rules are to be governed by old rules. It is important to note that the Court has not identified any vested right of an employee, as has been read into this judgment in certain subsequent cases.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Constitutional status of a person in employment with the State<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/h4>\n

Going through a number of authorities, the Court culled out the following principles governing the status of a person employed with the State that led to the conclusion that the status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services<\/em>:<\/p>\n