Tripura High Court: Field Occupied by Statutory Rules Cannot be Governed by Executive Instructions

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

In Sri Abhishek Majumder vs Tripura Gramin Bank & Anr, Chief Justice Mr Akil Kureshi dealt with a petition that sought to set aside a distinction made between general and specialist cadre exclusively through executive instruction for the purpose of promotion. 

Facts of the Case

Petitioner joined as a clerk in the Respondent Bank after being selected through a competitive examination in 2011, a year later he was selected as a direct recruit to the post of Computer Engineer, further in 2014 as Officer Middle Management (Scale II). In 2019, promotion to Scale III was announced, with 4 vacancies, 2 each for normal channel and fast track promotion. For fast track channel, eligibility was 5 yrs experience in Scale II to which Petitioner applied. However the application was not considered and the reason cited was that the applicant was selected to Scale-II as a specialist cadre, distinct from the general stream. Such rejection has been challenged by the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced

Petitioners contend that there is no demarcation between general and specialist cadre as per recruitment rules which mentioned the eligibility criteria which is 5 yrs experience. Such distinction has been made artificially without statutory backing and therefore such executive instructions run counter to rules.

Respondents contend that the Petitioner was appointed as specialist cadre due to knowledge in information technology; the Bank does not have a sanctioned post in specialist cadre under Scale-III. Respondents have relied on NABARD communication which stated that a specialist officer can’t be promoted in general category vacancy. The Petitioner was recruited while the recruitment rules of 2010 were applicable and which made a clear distinction between specialist and a general cadre.

Court’s Observation and Decision

The Regional Rural Banks Act was enacted to provide for incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks with a view to developing the rural economy. Section 17 provides that a Regional Rural Bank may appoint such a number of officers and other employees, as it may consider necessary or desirable, for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 provides that the Central Government may, after consultation with the National Bank and the Sponsor Bank, by notification in Official Gazette make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 read with Section 17 of the said Act, the Central Government framed the “Recruitment Rules of 2017”. Sl. No.2 in the Third Schedule of the Recruitment Rules of 2017 pertains to Officer Middle Management (Scale-II). Out of the vacancies for direct recruitment, 10% would be filled up from Specialist cadre such as Information Technology. Sl. No.3 in the Third Schedule of Recruitment Rules of 2017 pertains to Officer Middle Management (Scale-III). Promotion to the post under fast track process has been elucidated as having 5 yrs experience in Scale II on full time and regular basis. 

With respect to whether Candidates who were recruited under the Specialist cadre be kept out, the Court observed that the 2017 Rules were framed with the exercise of statutory basis and hence has statutory force. These rules make no distinction and therefore it cannot be made through executive instructions. If there are gaps in recruitment rules, it may be filled by executive instruction, however, executive instructions cannot run counter to rules. Consequently, the communication of rejection by Respondent was set aside and the application by Petitioner is liable to be considered for the selection process.

Click here  


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -