Union of India Vs. Mohan Singh Rathore & Anr [1996] INSC 1052 (2
September 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The
respondent was appointed in the Rajasthan State Police Service. He was put in
the select list on December
28,2987. The Union
Public Service Commission had approved it on February 2,1988. He was due to retire on May 31, 1988 on attaining superannuation. His name along with eight
other candidates, was included for allotment from the State quota to the Indian
Service. The requirements of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, the "Promotion Regulations")
envisage that the Union Public Service Commission, under Regulation 7, shall
consider the list prepared by the Committee along with other documents received
from the State Government and, unless it considers any change necessary, it
shall approve the list.
Sub-regulation
(4) is relevant in this case which provides that the select list shall
ordinarily be in force until its review and revision effected under
sub-regulation (4) or (5) is approved under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case
may be, is finally approved under sub-regulation (2). As per regulation 7 (3),
the list as finally approved by the UPSC shall form the select list. Proviso
thereto indicates thus:
"Provided
further that in the event of grave laps in the conduct or performance of duties
on the State Police Service included in the Select List, a special review of
the select list may be made at a time at the instance of the State Government
and the Commission may, if it so thinks fit, remove the name of such member of
the State Police Service from the Select List." Regulation 9 of the Promotion
Regulations, deals with Appointment of the State Police Service officers to
Indian Police Service, Sub-regulation (2) thereof reads as under:
"It
shall not ordinarily be necessary to consult the Commission before such
appointments are made, unless during the period intervening between the
inclusion of the name of a member of the State Police Service in the Select
List and the date of the proposed appointment there occurs any deterioration in
the work of the member of the State Police Service or there is any other ground
which, in the opinion of the State Government or the Central Government, is
such as to render him unsuitable for appointment to the service." While
making recommendation, the State Government is required to furnish in this
regard the "no deterioration certificate" of the selected candidates
as per the letter No.11/4/73-AIS(1) dated May 22, 1973 of the Union of India,
Administrative Reforms of the Department of Personnel which has been made part
of the Promotion Regulations as decision No.9 which reads as under:
"Having
regard to the provision contained in the proviso to the sub-regulation (4) of
regulation 7 of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the State
Government/Joint Cadre Authority, which making recommendations for the appointment
of a member of State Civil Service to Indian Administrative Service, may
forward a certificate on the following lines:
"The
State Government/the Joint Cadre Authority certifies that subsequent to the
inclusion of the name of Shri in the Select List, there has been no
deterioration in his work as to render him unsuitable for appointment to the
Indian Administrative Service nor has any lapse in his conduct or performance
of duties in his part come to the notice of the State Government/the Joint
Cadre Authority".
This
requirement is mandatory for the reason that before Appointment of the persons
to the Indian Police Service, under the Promotion Regulations, the Union
Government should receive the certificate from the concerned State Government
or the Union Territory that there has been no deterioration in the service of
the incumbent in the interregnums as it is mandatory to know the continued
quality, integrity, honesty and efficiency of the concerned officer. The State
Government had not sent any "no deterioration certification" in
relation to the respondent before the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 in relation to others, came to be
issued. Since it did not contain the name of the respondent, he could not be
appointed. When he filed O.A. No.793/92 in the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jaipur Bench, by order dated August 7, 1995
the Tribunal directed the juniors. It is seen that the Tribunal does not appear
to have had any knowledge of the operation of the provisions of Promotion
Regulations. It treated them on per with general principles of service
jurisprudence and directed, without referring to any of relevant rules, the
appellant-Government to appoint him.
Therefore,
on principle of law the order of the Tribunal is obviously illegal. It is
accordingly set asides.
However,
the question is: what would be the relief that could be granted to the
respondent. It is seen that the State Government did not forward the "no
deterioration certificate" in relation to the respondent and after the retirement
of the respondent the State Government had written a letter to the Union of
India on February 21, 1989 stating as he was "well deserving"
candidate. Nothing had prevented the State Government to send the "no
deterioration certificate" of the respondent along with certificates in
relation to other candidates when he was due to retire. It is seen that they
forwarded the select list on April 11, 1988
to the Government of India and the respondent was due to
retire on May 31, 1988. When such was thee incumbency
nothing would have prevented the State Government from forwarding the letter.
Consequently, the respondent had to lose the chance for being appointed to the
IPS Cadre though he was found suitable and approved by the UPSC. Under these
circumstances, we think that appropriate direction would be that the Union of
India may include his name in the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 as a select list candidate and give
him order of appointment letter.
Consequently,
the respondent would be entitled to all the retiremental benefits on that
basis.
The
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2