2017 (8) TMI 1745 - SC - Indian Laws

What is equity and justice in a situation where a few employees face adverse consequences for not passing an obligatory test which was never conducted? - HELD THAT - No doubt Under Rule 13AA the passing of test is obligatory for members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe below the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department. But it has to be seen that it is Rule 39 which is an exception to the exemption contemplated Under Rule 13AA. Rule 39 is to operate notwithstanding anything prescribed not only in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules or the Special Rules but even in any Government Order. The whole purpose of such residuary power is to remedy an otherwise unjust and inequitable situation. Therefore the Government Order dated 05.02.2000 also does not stand in the way of the Government invoking Rule 39. That apart Rule 13AA operates in the matter of promotion whereas in the instant case Rule 39 is operated in the matter of probation. In ascertaining equity and justice the simple question to be addressed is what would happen to those thirty seven Assistant Sub-Inspectors in service in case the exemption is not granted. For no fault on their part should they have to continue as Assistant Sub-Inspectors only till their retirement? Is there any point nay does it even appeal to common sense to subject them to the test after more than twelve years of entering service and serving in promoted posts as well? Certainly to remedy such a situation an equitable relief deserves to be granted to such employees in the interest of justice by invoking Rule 39. That is what has been done by the Government as per the impugned Order dated 17.11.2000. Conclusion - i) Rule 39 provides the government with the authority to act in a just and equitable manner overriding other rules when necessary to prevent injustice. ii) The exemption granted by the government is valid under Rule 39 and the appeal against it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered was whether the Government of Kerala's decision to exempt thirty-seven Assistant Sub-Inspectors from passing a mandatory test, which was never conducted, was justified under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The issues revolved around the interpretation of Rule 39 in conjunction with Rule 13AA, the applicability of these rules to the situation, and whether the exemption was equitable and just.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework primarily involved Rule 9 of the Special Rules requiring the passing of a test for probation declaration, Rule 13AA stipulating no exemptions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, and Rule 39 allowing the government to act in a just and equitable manner notwithstanding other rules. The Court also referred to precedents such as the Full Bench decision in T.C. Sreedharan Pillai and the Kerala High Court's decision in Sherafuddin v. State of Kerala.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court interpreted Rule 39 as a residuary power enabling the government to address situations not covered by other rules, to prevent injustice. It clarified that Rule 39 operates notwithstanding other rules, including Rule 13AA, which pertains to promotions, while Rule 39 was applied for probation matters in this case. The Court emphasized that Rule 39 is meant to provide equitable solutions in extraordinary circumstances.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence showed that the test required under Rule 9 was not conducted for over twelve years, leaving the Assistant Sub-Inspectors unable to complete their probation and affecting their promotions and increments. The government invoked Rule 39 to exempt them from the test, considering the prolonged inaction and resultant injustice.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied Rule 39 to the facts by recognizing the extraordinary situation where the test was not conducted due to no fault of the employees. It concluded that insisting on the test after twelve years was unjust and that the exemption was a necessary equitable relief to remedy the situation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellants argued that Rule 13AA prohibited exemptions and that the exemption was unjust. However, the Court held that Rule 39 supersedes other rules and is applicable in extraordinary situations to ensure justice and equity. The Court dismissed the reliance on the Full Bench decision in T.C. Sreedharan Pillai, stating that Rule 39 allows for exemptions in specific cases where equity and justice demand it.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the government's use of Rule 39 to exempt the Assistant Sub-Inspectors from the test was justified, equitable, and necessary to prevent injustice. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the government order.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court established that Rule 39 provides the government with the authority to act in a just and equitable manner, overriding other rules when necessary to prevent injustice. The Court held that "equity shall overpower technicality where human justice is at stake," emphasizing the moral dimension of law. It affirmed that Rule 39 could be used to address situations where the enforcement of a rule would result in inequity and injustice.

The final determination was that the exemption granted by the government was valid under Rule 39, and the appeal against it was dismissed. The Court noted that the decision was specific to the validity of the government order and did not preclude other grievances from being pursued through appropriate legal channels.