Non-Tabling of Delegated Legislation Does Not Invalidate It Where Laying Requirement Is Directory; Registrar’s Statutory Power Cannot Be Defeated Merely Because Amendment Was Communicated Through an Executive-Looking Document: Supreme Court Upholds Registrar’s Rule Amendment and Restores Promotion
Case Name: S. P. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 30 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 769
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Registrar’s statutory power under Section 55(1) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to frame rules governing service conditions necessarily includes the power to amend, alter or delete such rules, reinforced by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It further held that although Section 95(3) states that all rules “shall” be laid before the Legislative Assembly, the requirement is directory rather than mandatory because the statute prescribes no consequence for non-tabling. Accordingly, failure to lay the amendment before the Assembly did not invalidate it. Where statutory power admittedly existed and had in fact been exercised by the Registrar, the validity of the action could also not be defeated merely because the amendment was subsequently communicated through a document described as a circular or issued by the Additional Registrar pursuant to the Registrar’s order.
Summary: The dispute arose from the promotion of S.P. Chandrakar, an employee of the District Central Cooperative Bank, Raipur, who had originally been appointed to the technical post of Assistant Engineer. Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1982 Service Rules prohibited employees appointed for specialised technical work from being appointed or absorbed in posts involving work different from their original duties. Chandrakar’s seniority and subsequent eligibility for promotion to Additional Manager, a non-technical/administrative post, were therefore challenged by another employee, Kishor Bagh.
The Registrar had, however, exercised power under Section 55(1) and deleted Rules 5(3)(a), (b) and (c). A subsequent communication dated 13 August 2010 specifically stated that Rule 5(3)(a) stood deleted so that technical employees could become eligible for promotion to posts carrying higher posts and pay scales. Chandrakar was thereafter promoted as Additional Manager on 30 December 2010. The Single Judge, followed by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, quashed the promotion on the reasoning that no valid statutory amendment had been demonstrated and that an executive communication could not amend statutory service rules.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Section 55(1) expressly authorises the Registrar to frame rules governing employment conditions, and the Court held that such rule-making power includes the authority to amend, vary or rescind those rules by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. It also rejected the objection that the communication was signed by the Additional Registrar, noting that it expressly stated “ordered by Registrar” and the State itself did not dispute that the amendment had been made under the Registrar’s authority.
On the crucial question of laying the amendment before the Legislative Assembly, the Court held that the word “shall” is not invariably mandatory. Its character depends upon legislative intent, the statutory scheme and the consequences of non-compliance. Since Section 95(3) neither postpones operation of the rules until legislative approval nor provides any consequence for non-tabling, it constituted a simple and directory laying requirement. The Court therefore held that non-tabling could not defeat an otherwise valid exercise of the Registrar’s statutory rule-making power.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench, and restored Chandrakar’s promotion, holding that it had been made pursuant to a valid exercise of statutory power. Chandrakar was directed to be restored to the position and status from which he had been removed; his seniority was protected, he was held entitled to all promotional benefits falling due in accordance with law, and he was awarded 50% back wages payable within two months, failing which the amount would carry 6% annual interest. The Court also observed that an employee who has held a promotion for a considerable period should ordinarily be entitled to arrange his affairs on the assumption that such long-standing promotion will not later be disturbed.