S. P. Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court: Registrar Has Power to Amend Service Rules; Executive Communication Valid When Issued Under Statutory Authority
The Supreme Court restored the promotion of a District Cooperative Central Bank employee by holding that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has statutory authority under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to frame, amend, vary or rescind service rules governing bank employees. Consequently, the deletion of the rule that barred technical employees from promotion to administrative posts was held to be legally valid.
The Court held that the power to frame rules necessarily includes the power to amend or delete them, as recognised by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It further observed that the amendment communicated by the Additional Registrar was issued “by order of the Registrar”, and since the State itself accepted that the amendment had been made under the Registrar’s authority, it could not be invalidated merely because it was communicated through a circular rather than a formal notification.
Rejecting the High Court’s view that the amendment lacked statutory force, the Supreme Court held that the requirement under Section 95(3) of laying the rules before the Legislative Assembly is directory and not mandatory, as the statute prescribes no consequence for non-compliance. Therefore, failure to lay the amendment before the Legislature did not invalidate the exercise of power by the Registrar.
The Court also reiterated that the source of statutory power, and not the nomenclature of the document, determines its validity. Where statutory authority exists, describing the instrument as a “circular” or “communication” does not render it invalid. Since the appellant’s promotion was based on a valid amendment and he had served on the promoted post for over thirteen years, the Supreme Court restored his promotion, protected his seniority, granted all consequential promotional benefits, and awarded 50% back wages with interest in case of delayed payment.
Cases Discussed
- Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (SC)
- T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (SC)
- Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (SC)
- State of M.P. v. Hukum Chand Mills Karamchari (SC)
- Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India (SC)
- State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (SC)
- State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (SC)
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (SC)
- Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (SC)
- Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal (SC)
- Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of M.P. (SC)
- Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (SC)
- Nani Gopal Biswas v. Municipality of Howrah (SC)
- Pitamber Vajirshet v. Dhondu Navlapa, 1887 SCC OnLine Bom 2 : ILR (1888) 12 Bom 486
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave Granted.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.
