Ramanand
Prasad Singh & Anr Vs. Union of India
& Ors [1996] INSC 468 (27 March 1996)
Manohar
Sujata V. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 64 JT 1996 (4) 39 1996 SCALE (3)231
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 5126-5128 OF 1996 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 23418-23420
OF 1995) Union Public Service Commission & Anr. V. Surendra Prasad Sinha
& Ors.
Leave
granted.
The
appellant have challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 28th of July, 1995 as a
result of which the Tribunal has set aside the selections made by the Selection
Committee on 30th of March, 1994 of officers of the Bihar Administrative
Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
The
Tribunal by its impugned order set aside the entire selection made at the
meeting of the Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994 on an interpretation
of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955,
holding that only three times the number of anticipated vacancies for the year
plus 20% could have been considered as within the zone of consideration before
the Selection Committee. The consideration of other officers under Regulation
5(3) was contrary to the said Regulations.
It
also said that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were vitiated on
account of the participation of one Shri S.N. Dubey as a member of the
Selection Committee because his brother was within the zone of consideration
although the brother has not been selected. And lastly the Tribunal has said
that there was non-application of mind by the Selection Committee in
considering 264 names on a single day.
The
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955,
have been framed by the Central Government in consultation with the State
Governments and the Union Public Service Commission under sub-rule (1) of Rule
8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. The relevant
Regulation which requires consideration is Regulation 5. The material
provisions of Regulation 5 are as follows:
"Regulation
5:
Preparation
of a list of suitable Officers - (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at
intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the
State Civil Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the
service. The number of members of the State Civil Service to be included in the
list shall be calculated as the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in
the course of the period of 12 months, commencing from the date of preparation
of the list in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment
Rules plus twenty percent of such number or two whichever is greater.
Explanation
- In case of joint cadres a separate select list shall be prepared in respect
of each State Civil Service, the size of each select list being determined in
the manner indicated above.
(2)
The Committee shall consider for inclusion in the said list, the cases of
members of the State Civil Services in the order of seniority in that service
of a number which is equal to three times the number referred to in
sub-regulation (1).
...................................
Provided
further that in computing the number for inclusion in the field of
consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall
be excluded:
...................................
(3)
The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil
Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of the year in
which it meets.
Provided
that a member of the State Civil Service whose name appears in the select list
in force immediately before the date of the meeting of the Committee shall be
considered for inclusion in the fresh list, to be prepared by the Committee
even if he has in the meanwhile attained the age of 54 years.
Provided
further that a member of the State Civil Service who has attained the age of
fifty four years on the first day of April of the year in which the Committee
meets shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for
consideration on the first day of April of the year or of any of the years
immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held but could not be
as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or
years." Under Regulation 5 (1) the number of officers who are to be
included in the list of suitable officers prepared by the Selection Committee
is specified as the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course
of the period of 12 months plus 20%. Under Regulation 5(2), the number of
officers required to be considered are three times the number which is to be
finally included in the list. The number of officers required to be considered
under Regulation 5(2) for selection in the list may be referred to as officers
within the zone of consideration.
Persons
above the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year in which the
Selection Committee meets are not eligible for being considered. Therefore,
they are not within the zone of consideration. This is set out in the first
part of Regulation 5(3). The first proviso to Regulation 5(3), however, states
that a member of the State Civil Service whose name appears in the immediately
preceding Select List in force shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh
list, even if he has, in the meanwhile, attained the age of 54 years. The
second proviso to Regulation 5(3) states that if during any immediate preceding
year/years, a person was eligible for consideration but could not be considered
because no meeting of the Selection Committee was held that year, such a person
will also be considered by the Selection Committee even though he may have, in
the meanwhile, attained the age of 54 years. In other words. candidates who
would have been within the zone of consideration if the Selection Committee had
met during the year but who lost the chance because the Selection Committee did
not meet are given a chance to be considered at the first available opportunity
even though they may have in the meanwhile attained the age of 54 years.
The
Tribunal has held that the two provisoes to Regulation 5(3) which require the
Selection Committee to consider certain candidates who may be above the age of
54 years, has to be interpreted as applying only to the candidates who are
within the zone of consideration as defined under Regulation 5(2) but who may
have attained the age of 54 years. These candidates, if they fall within the
proviso to Regulation 5(3), will have to be considered by the Committee. We
have to consider whether this is a correct interpretation of Regulations 5(2)
and 5(3).
In the
present case, the number of anticipated vacancies for which selection was held,
were 43. As per Regulation 5(2) the zone of consideration was fixed at 153
(i.e. 43 vacancies plus 20% x 3). In addition to this, officers (a) whose names
were on the earlier Selection List in force [one such officer] (first proviso
to Regulation 5(3) and (b) officers who though above the age of 54, were eligible
under the second proviso to Regulation 5(3) because there were no selections in
the years 1991-92 and 1999-93 [110 such officers] were included. The total number
of officer, therefore, considered by the Selection Committee were 153+1+110,
that is to say, 264 officers.
According
to the Tribunal, the zone of consideration should have been confined to only
153 officers. This interpretation is in the teeth of the express provisions of
Regulation 5(2). While Regulation 5(2) provides that the number of officers
required to be considered are three times the number of anticipated vacancies
plus 20%. the proviso to Regulation 5(2) lays down that in computing the number
of officers who should be in the field of consideration under Regulation 5(2),
the number of officers referred to in sub- regulation (3) shall be excluded. In
other words, in the present case, 153 officers who are to be included in the
zone of consideration will be after excluding officers who qualify under
Regulation 5(3). Therefore, 153 officers who are to be considered are other
than those falling under sub- regulation (3).
Sub-regulation
(3) of Regulation 5 which confers a right to be considered on certain State
Civil Servants who may have attained the age of 54 also does not qualify this
right to be considered by adding that such a person shall be considered only if
he is within the zone of consideration under Regulation 5(2).
Clearly,
therefore. the persons who are required to be considered for selection under
Regulation 5(3) are in addition to the persons who are required to be
considered under Regulation 5(2). In fact, this is how these recruitment
regulations have been interpreted over a number of years. The Union Public
Service Commission which issues instructions regarding the manner in which list
of officers is to be prepared for consideration by the Selection Committee and
the documents and information which are required to be submitted to the Union
Public Service Commission for selection of such officers clearly sets this out
in clause 3(d) of the Instructions:
Clause
3(d):
"Officers
who are over 54 years as on 1.4.1993 are ordinarily not considered. However, (i)
if their names appear in the previous Select List or (ii) if no Selection
Committee Meeting was held in the previous year(s) when he was eligible, then
his case will be considered by the current selection committee Meeting. For
this purpose his name should figure in the proper place in the Eligibility List
and his case will he considered only if his name falls within the required zone
of consideration calculated according to vacancies. However, the names of such
officers will not be counted in the normal zone and they will be taken as
extra, to the required number of 3 times the size of the Select List." The
zone of selection therefore. under the Regulations consists of three parts; (1)
officers who fall within Regulation 5(2) after excluding all officers falling
under (2)and (3): (2) officers above the age of 54 who are "carried
forward" from the earlier Selection List in force and: (3) officers above
the age of 54 who have been deprived of their chance of being considered due to
non-holding of meetings of the Selection Committee. All these are to be
considered by the Selection Committee. The Tribunal was, therefore. not right
in holding that only persons covered by Regulation 5(2) without any exclusion
are eligible for being considered by the. Selection Committee.
The
second ground of challenge to the selection is that one S.N.Dubey should not
have been a member of the Selection Committee because his brother was one of
the 264 candidates being considered for selection. The brother has. in fact,
not been selected by the Selection Committee. We fail to see how the selection
of all other candidates is vitiated in any manner by this factor.
The
last contention relates to non-application of mind by the Selection Committee
to the task before it because it is contended that the Committee considered 264
candidates in one day in order to prepare a list of 51 candidates. The State of
Bihar and the Union Public Service
Commission in their affidavits/written statements have clearly set out that the
confidential service records of all the candidates in the zone of consideration
are scrutinized long prior to the holding of the selection Committee's meeting.
The Committee applies its mind to the service records and makes its own
assessment of the service records of the candidates marking them as
outstanding, very good. good and so on. The Selection Committee does not
necessarily adopt the same grading which is given by the Reporting/Reviewing
Officer in respect of each of the candidates. In fact the Selection Committee
makes an overall relative assessment of the confidential report dossiers of the
officers in the zone of consideration. It thus does not evaluate the
confidential report dossier of an individual in isolation. It is after this
comparative assessment that the best candidates are put in the Select List. In
view of the affidavit so filed, there is no merit in the contention that the
Selection Committee did not apply its mind while preparing the list of 51
officers. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in setting aside the selection
made by the Selection Committee at its meeting of 30th of March, 1994.
The
appeals are, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is set
aside and the Select list prepared by the Selection Committee at its meeting
held On 30th of March. 1994 is upheld as a valid Select list prepared in
accordance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations. 1955 and in accordance with law. There will be no order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2