Sh. Ashok
V. David Sh. M.G. Halappanavar Vs. Union
of India & Ors [1996] INSC 715 (10 May 1996)
G.N.
Ray, B.L. Hansaria Hansaria, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
10TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr.Justice G.N. Ray Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.L Hansaria C.S. Vaidyanathan, and Dr. Rajiv
Dhawan, A.K. Ganguli, Sr.Advs., Raju Ramachandran, S.R. Bhat, N.R.Nath, Ms.Kiran
Bhardwaj, Advs. with them for the appellants. M.L.Bhat, Sr. Adv. S.Wasim Qadri,
Anil Katiyar, Ms.Sangeeta Kumar, S.K. Kulkarni, K.R. Nagaraja, P.Mahale, Advs.,
with him for the Respondents.
O R D
E R
The
following Judgment of Court was delivered:
Leave
granted.
2. The
appellants, who were direct recruits to the Karnataka Administrative Service
had become due for consideration for promotion to the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS) in the year 1982 in accordance with the Indian Administrative
Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1995. They were, however, not
so considered because they did not come within the zone of consideration, as in
the seniority list their position was low, and as, to come within zone of
consideration the number of persons to be considered can be only twice, they
were left out. It is not in dispute that their seniority position was changed
to their advantage subsequently. It is also not in dispute that had their
position in the seniority list been correctly reflected earlier, they would
have been within the zone of consideration, when the selection committee set in
December, 1983.
3. The
appellants' case is that they having been denied consideration in December,
1983 because of their wrong placement in the seniority list, their promotion to
the IAS got delayed, with the consequential result that proper year of
allotment was not assigned to them. They, therefore, approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal with prayer to direct the Union of India to give them
the order of allotment as 1979 (instead of 1982), which had been given to the
persons who were really junior to the appellants, but had been shown senior
earlier, which position came to be altered subsequently. This has been denied. Hence
these appeals.
4. The
main contention of Shri Bhat, appearing for the Union of India, was that
despite restoration of seniority of the appellants they could not have been
within the zone of consideration when the selection committee was set in
December, 1983, inasmuch as the appellants came to be confirmed with effect
from 1.1.1986; and it is a confirmed hand who becomes eligible for
consideration. Though there is no dispute that formal confirmation qua the
appellants was effective from 1.1.1986, the case of the appellants, as advanced
by Shri Ganguli and Shri Vaidvanathan for them, was that under the provisions
of Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957, a probationer, after satisfactory
completion of the period of probation, becomes due for confirmation; and if for
unjustifiable reasons formal order of confirmation is delayed, the incumbents
cannot be made to suffer. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, however, contended that a
probationer cannot be treated to be a confirmed employee merely on satisfactory
completion of probation till an order of confirmation is passed. This follows,
according to learned counsel, from a combined reading of Rules 5 and 9 of the
aforesaid Probation Rules. Despite there being force in these contentions of
the learned counsel, we entertain no doubt that formal confirmation order
cannot be unreasonably delayed, as the delay causes injury in those cases where
confirmation is a pre-condition for getting better service condition, as was in
this case.
5. The
facts relating to the two appellants qua their confirmation is that an order
was passed on 14th November, 1997 stating that the Government or Karnataka was
pleased to declare that the officers had satisfactorily completed the period of
probation on 14.7.1976. Despite this formal confirmation was ordered from
1.1.1986. We do not find any cogent reason fro this undue delay inasmuch from
the Revised Gradation List of Karnataka Administrative Service Group 'A'
(Junior Scale) Officers as on 1.1.1990, a copy of which is a pages 144 to 188
of the paper book in appeal arising out SLP (C) no. 12129 of 1994, it appears
from page 167 that the appellants were confirmed against the vacancies which
had occurred on 25.6.1962 and 4.7.1962. There was thus absolutely no cogent
reason to confirm them from 1.1.1986 inasmuch as they had satisfactorily
completed their probationery period as early as 14.7.1976. It is also worth
pointing out that the respondents. Whose names found place within the zone of
consideration when the selection committee was made in December, 1983, had come
to be confirmed against vacancies which were occurred on 5.2.1963 and
31.7.1976. The late confirmation of the appellants can, therefore, he taken as
illustration of that "glorious uncertainty" relating to confirmation
which is known in service career and is amply borne out by confirmation of a
judicial officer as a District Judge after he had retired as a Supreme Court
Judge.
6. In
the aforesaid premises, we have no doubt that the appellants had become
eligible for consideration when the selection committee set in December, 1983
and we, therefore, direct the Union of India to give that order of allotment to
the appellants which is due to them by treating that their selection for
promotion to IAS had taken place, not pursuant to the select list prepared in
1987, but in 1983. The Union of India would pass necessary order in this regard
within a period of two months from today.
7. The
appeals are allowed accordingly, In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
make no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
