Rules

  1. The propriety of the rules cannot be adjudicated in collateral proceedings without being properly challenged. Mubarak Hussain  v. AJ&K P.S.C. & 14 others 2005 SCR 93 (B)
  2. Rules cannot be framed for the benefit of a particular person — It is ordered by the Prime Minister on application that ‘‘the request made in the application appears to be genuine, the rules shall be reconsidered by the Committee’’— Held: This practice is not appreciable. Rizwan Muzaffar v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2010 SCR 156 (C)
  3. Rules cannot be framed/amended at the sweet-will of a party and it is the sole prerogative of the authority concerned to frame or amend the same. Syed Rashed Hussain Shah v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 883 (J) 2010 SCR 156 rel.
  4.  Challenge to — necessary party — Argument, the appellant has neither impleaded the selection committee as party nor he challenged the appointment order — Held: when the appellant challenged the rules on the basis of which the whole process was made there was no need to challenge the process of selection specifically. Altaf Hussain v. Intermediate & Secondary Education Board & 4 others 2016 SCR 1159 (C) 1994 SCR 297 rel.
  5. Amendment in — effect from — date of publication in the official gazette — in absence of any express retrospective effect — The mode of appointment against the post in question has been provided only by promotion and provision of appointment by transfer has been omitted. These amended Rules have been notified in the official gazette on 17-06-2015. According to the law, there is no cavil that such like rules take effect from the date of publication in the official gazette in absence of any express retrospective effect. Javed Iqbal v. Tasadaq H. 2016 SCR 1589 (A)
  6. Amendment of — The version of the petitioners is that Rules be amended and departmental promotion quota be provided. Held: The Framing of Rules is a sole prerogative of the concerned authorities and no such direction can be issued that the Rules shall be framed according to the wishes of the Government Servants. Qazi Ghulam Sarwar & 3 others v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2016 SCR 1737 (A) 2014 SCR 883 & 2010 SCR 156, rel.
  7. —rules cannot be framed/amended at the sweet-will of any civil servant— Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department (Paramedics and Medical Assistants Dying Cadre (4 tiers formula) Service Rules, 2015, Challenge to— Prior to Rules, Policy Notification dated 15.05.2009, was in field in Health Department as stop-gap arrangement—The appellants are claiming that the mechanism introduced in the policy notification dated 15.05.2009, for promotion was in accordance with law which has been changed with mala fide intention. Before attending the merits of the instant case, we make it clear that it is settled principle of law that the rules cannot be framed/amended at the sweet-will of any civil servant as the same is the sole prerogative of the Government. Zaffar Iqbal Khan vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 1079 (A)
  8. —Grounds  for  abolishing  of  rules—-if  rules  in  conflict with the parent Act or the Constitution—The domain of the Government to alter Rules or fix the ratio of quota for initial recruitment/promotion— the Rules can only be abolished if it is proved that the same have been enacted in conflict with the provisions of parent Act or Constitution. In the instant case, the claim of the appellants is that by promulgating the Rules, the way of promotion of the appellants has been blocked/curtailed. From the deep scrutiny of the policy notification dated 15.05.2009 and the newly framed Rules it postulates that the way of promotion of any employee of Health Department has not been blocked rather the Government in the Rules only altered the ratio of quota fixed for initial recruitment/promotion as well as the qualification prescribed in the policy notification for different posts, which is well within the domain of the Government and the appellants failed to substantiate the element of mala-fide on the part of the Government in this regard. Zaffar Iqbal Khan vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 1079 (B)
  9. — framing/amendment of rules—change/enhancement of qualification—the AJ&K Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teaching Cadre Service Rules, 2016—the power of Govt. cannot shattered—if same is not ultra vires the Constitution or based on mala fide—it appears from the record that the appellants’ claim is based on such a right which may accrue to them in future, it is very astonishing, if their claim is accepted then consequently, the way of making amendments in the rules shall be closed which is against the scheme of law.  It may be observed here that enhancement in the minimum qualification for promotions/appointments is the need of the hour and when nothing is available on record to show that enhancements introduced through Rules, 2016, are ultra vires the Constitution or based on mala fide then the powers duly conferred to the Government by law cannot be shattered.  Sardar Muhammad Khalil & others  v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 571 (A)
  10. —rules cannot be framed/amended at the sweet will of any civil servant— the AJ&K Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teaching Cadre Service Rules, 2016 a civil servant cannot claim that the rules be framed in such a manner so that he may be promoted. In the instant case, as it is obvious from the record that the appellants challenged the amended rules only on the ground that the same are not suitable for them therefore, in view of the settled law the wish of the appellants cannot be fulfilled. The appellants may improve the qualifications to achieve the goal. Sardar Muhammad Khalil & others  v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 571 (B)
  11. —framing/amendment of rules—change/enhancement of qualification— the AJ&K Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teaching Cadre Service Rules, 2016—grounds to challenge variation—to get the claimed relief from the Court the appellants had to prove that the amended rules are inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or the Constitution, but they have failed to do so, therefore, the same cannot be declared as illegal/ultra vires the Constitution. Sardar Muhammad Khalil & others  v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 571 (C) 2018 SCR 1079 rel
  12. —Rules cannot be framed, amended or altered at the sweet will of any person—it is prerogative of authority concerned to frame, amend or alter keeping in view the mandate for doing so— rules cannot be declared illegal until and unless it is proved that the same are in conflict with the provisions of parent Act or the Constitution. Ghulam Mustafa Kiyani & 6 others  Versus Selection Board & 4 others 2021 SCR 232 (A&B) 2014 SCR 883 ref.
  13. —Power to make rules   Held: it is settled principle of law that framing overrules is within the competence of Rules framing authority/Government. Unless there is any violation of provision of parent act or Constitution, the Courts cannot interfere, advise or suggest the authority to make specific type of rules. It has been held by this Court in a number of cases that framing of rules is the sole prerogative of the authority and the rules cannot be framed, amended or altered on the sweet will of a party. Rashid Aftab &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others  2022 SCR 1598
  14. —Framing of rules—the Government or the competent authority may make or amend the policy or rules for appointment and promotion of the civil servants with the object of enhancing the efficiency and performance of civil servants which is the need of the  hour. Rashid Aftab &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others  2022 SCR 1598 (G&H) 2014 SCR 883, 2010 SCR 156 and 2019 SCR 57 rel.
  15. — the Govt. is empowered to enhance, alter or annexed the prescribed qualification for particular posts and to enhance or curtail the quota — a civil servant cannot claim vested right for promotion to a particular post with the claim that rules be framed in such a manner, so that he may be promoted — Rules can be declared illegal if they are enacted in violation of parent Act or they offend any provision of constitution —. Jan Muhammad & others versus Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 769 (A)
  16. — Government is empowered to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed qualification for a particular post and enhance or curtail the quota. Dr. Zaheer Mehmood vs Azad Government & others 2024 SCR 306 (A)
  17.  — a civil servant cannot claim vested right for promotion against a particular post with the claim that Rules be framed in such a manner so that, he/she may be promoted. Dr. Zaheer Mehmood vs Azad Government & others 2024 SCR 306 (B)
error: Content is protected !!