Introduction:

In a recent landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court addressed the limits of administrative power over statutory rules in the case of Union of India Through Secretary, Railway Board & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar. The court scrutinized the legality of the Railways’ decision to deny a promotion based on administrative modifications to existing rules governing promotions.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Shri Palash Tiwari, argued that the Railways had the authority to amend statutory rules through administrative decisions to adapt to changing workload conditions. They contended that the Indian Railways Public Relations Department (Group ‘A’ & ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982, allowed for such variations, particularly concerning the filling of the Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO) position. The Railways claimed that these variations were necessary due to fluctuating workloads, thereby justifying their decision to reduce the number of CPRO positions and deny promotion to Santosh Kumar.

Conversely, the respondent, represented by Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, with Shri A.V. Sridhar and Ms. Kushboo Dua, argued that the statutory rules were explicit and unambiguous regarding the promotion process. They contended that the Railways’ administrative decisions to alter the rules were impermissible, as they contradicted the established rules governing promotions. The respondent highlighted that the statutory rules did not provide any leeway for administrative modifications that would undermine the clear provisions for filling posts.

Court’s Judgment:

The Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Radhakishan Agrawal, ruled in favor of the respondent. The court reinforced the principle that while administrative instructions can supplement statutory rules, they cannot amend or replace them. The court emphasized that deviations or modifications to statutory rules cannot be made through executive decisions. Instead, the government must adhere to the specific provisions outlined in the rules.

Citing the Supreme Court case Union of India and Others v. Mange Lal, the court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. Consequently, the court rejected the Railways’ argument that the rules allowed for administrative deviations based on workload and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision in favor of Santosh Kumar, who was wrongfully denied the promotion.