The Supreme Court on Friday (July 10) issued notice on a plea filed by the All India Clerks Association challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment upholding the validity of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) Ministerial Staff Posts Recruitment Rules, 2019, which had enhanced the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from 8 years to 10 years.

Before a partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice K Vinod Chandran, the petitioner-Association contends that the amended 2019 Rules adversely affected existing employees by increasing the qualifying service for promotion from eight years to ten years, allegedly in violation of the Department of Personnel and Training's (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated December 31, 2010, which protected the existing eligibility criteria for employees affected by changes to recruitment rules.

The dispute concerns the promotional eligibility of Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) serving in the Southern Naval Command of the Indian Navy.

The petitioner, along with four individual UDCs, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, challenging the validity of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) Ministerial Staff Posts Recruitment Rules, 2019.

The petitioners contended that the 2019 Recruitment Rules failed to incorporate Clause 3.1.3 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated December 31, 2010, which protects existing employees from being adversely affected by amendments to recruitment rules by preserving the earlier eligibility criteria for promotion.

Under the Recruitment Rules of 2000, UDCs became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant after completing eight years of qualifying service. However, after the 2019 Rules merged the posts of Assistant and Office Superintendent, the qualifying service was increased to ten years.

The Association argued that employees who entered service under the earlier regime ought to have continued to enjoy the eight-year eligibility requirement in terms of the DoPT's policy.

The CAT allowed their application directing the Union Government to amend the 2019 Rules, however, the High Court reversed the CAT's order. Also, the High Court held that the Association could not maintain a generalized challenge on behalf of all affected employees without demonstrating that the individual applicants themselves had suffered prejudice.

Criticising the CAT's order, the High Court observed:

"By entertaining the plea of the Association in the absence of any proof on behalf of the applicant Nos. 2 to 4, the directions to the Union of India for amending the Rules incorporating clause 3.1.3 for retaining eight years of service to be eligible service criteria for existing employees, was totally a farcical exercise."

Against the High Court's order, the Association moved to the Supreme Court.

Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner-Association, the Court issued notice to the Respondents to be returnable within four weeks.

Moreover, the Court is expected to hear on the issue concerning the locus standi of the Associations to challenge recruitment rules on behalf of their members, as the High Court rejected the petitioner's application on this ground.

Cause Title: ALL INDIA CLERKS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.