Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that amendments to government orders which alter or modify earlier service rules must be interpreted reasonably so as to avoid unnecessary hardship to persons who had no control over the subject matter.

The Court observed that a subsequent amendment in the qualifications norms would not disturb the promotion of an employee who have acquired requisite qualifications as per the Rules prevalent during the relevant time.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the Appellant, a tourist officer in a Tamil Nadu State, was denied the promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism merely because the subsequent amendment brought to the governing Rules nullified the qualifications of the Appellant, which he had acquired as per the Rules that were in operation during the prevalent time at the time of his initial appointment.

In brief, one R.J. Gajendra Kumar, i.e., the Appellant, was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department in 1983 on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who was also working in the department.

At that time, the rules permitted him to pursue further education through the open/distance education system. He completed a foundation course in 1984 and later obtained a B.Com degree through distance education in 1987.

The Government subsequently recognised such qualifications through various orders. In 2000, it also recognised degrees obtained through distance education as equivalent to regular degrees.

The Appellant was later promoted as Tourist Officer in 2011, and his service was regularised with effect from August 5, 2011. He continued to work in that post for several years without anyone questioning his educational qualifications or his promotion.

When he sought promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism, however, the Government rejected his claim in 2020. It took the position that his educational qualifications did not satisfy the required 10+2+3 pattern.

The Government relied on later orders and clarifications which had changed the position regarding foundation courses and degrees obtained through open universities.

The Single Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the Appellant's petition directing the government to allow him the benefits of promotion after placing in the seniority list. The Division bench, however, reversed the Single Bench order, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Division Bench order, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed that since the appellant had obtained his qualifications when they were accepted under the prevailing rules, and his promotion as Tourist Officer had already taken place without challenge, therefore the Government could not use later changes or clarifications in educational norms to retrospectively question qualifications that had been valid when acquired.

“A candidate who has obtained the requisite qualification based on the prevailing norms i.e. GO Ms No. 528 dated 18.05.1985 which continued to remain in force for more than 24 years and finally came to be reversed after 32 years cannot be made ineligible by resorting to the maze of Government orders. It needs no reiteration that interpretation of such Government orders which have the effect of modifying and amending previous Government orders has to be done in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.”, the Court said.

The Court endorsed the Madras High Court's decision in P. Thavam v. State of Tamil Nadu, against which a SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2023, to hold that when a qualification had been treated as valid for a long period and was subsequently declared invalid, persons affected by the change ought to be protected.

Reference was also drawn from the Supreme Court's 1990 judgment in P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka to emphasize that “construction of amending rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject-matter.” In extension to the same, the Court referred to the general principle governing retrospective operation of statutory rules, holding that “it is a settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.”

Since, the amending rules doesn't expressly or by necessary implication said that the Rules would apply retrospectively, giving it a retrospective effect would create a hardship for the employees who have acquired the qualifications as per the prevalent Rules during the relevant time.

As a result, thereof, the appeal was allowed, holding that the appellant has the eligibility to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism.

Cause Title: R.J. GAJENDRA KUMAR VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, AOR Ms. Nikita Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. P. Krishnadevan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sachin S., Adv. Ms. Sneha Menon, Adv.

Tags: