S.A.Engineer
Vs. Union of India & Ors [1997] INSC 946 (18 December 1997)
SUJATA
V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
THE
18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:
Hon`ble
Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa Ms.Devika Bezbarvah,
Adv. for Mukul Mudgal, Adv. for the appellants.
V.C. Mahajan,
Sr. Adv., (Rajiv Nanda, ) Adv. for Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Adv. D.M.Nargolkar, Advs.
with him for the Respondents
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
With
Civil Appeal No.1093 of 92 D.P. Wadhwa. J.
The
appellant who belongs to State Civil Service of the State of Maharashtra, it
appears, could no get complete relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal
(for short `the Tribunal'), (New Bombay Bench), New Bombay for his claim to be
promoted to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative
service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1986. Instead the Tribunal
granted him relief to be promoted to Indian Administrative Service under the
aforesaid Regulation for the year 1987.
Selection
Committee for Maharashtra constituted under Regulation 3 of
the Regulations met on December
13, 1984 and prepared
a Select List under Regulation for filling up of 8 vacancies during the period
of 12 months from the date of the meeting. The name of the appellant was
included at Serial No.11 of the Select List. The Select List so prepared is to
be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission (for short `Commission') by
the State Government which finally approves the Select List. Under Regulation
9(1) appointment of members of the Sate Civil Service to the Indian
Administrative Service Shall be made by the Central Government on the
recommendation of the State Government in the order in which the names of
members of the State Civil Service appear in the Select List for the time being
in force. The Commission approved the select list. The State Government,
however, did not operate the Select List and sent no proposal to the Central
Government and as such no appointment was made from the Select List so prepared
to the Indian Administrative Service.
Next
Selection Committee for the State of Maharashtra met on December 19,1995
to prepare Select List towards filling up of 13 vacancies which now existed and
those anticipated during the period of 12 months from the date of the meeting.
The name of the appellant was included at Serial No.9 of the Select List. The
Select List was approved by the Commission on January 23, 1986. State of Maharashtra
sent a proposal to the Central Government for appointment of the officers
included at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and 11 of the Select List with "no
deterioration certificate" in their favour. The name of the appellant who
was appearing at Serial No.9 of the Select List was excluded by the State State
Government while forwarding the proposal for appointment of other candidates to
the Central Government.
Under
Regulation 9(1) the appointment form the Select List is to be made only in the
order in which the names of the State civil Service Officers appear on the
basis of the recommendation of the State Government. Accordingly, Central
Government notified the officers whose names appeared at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 of
the Select List for their appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. On
account of the fact that without making the appointment of the appellant who
was at Serial No. 9, the Central Government did not act on the recommendation
made by the State Government for appointment of the State Civil Service
Officers whose names appeared at Serial Nos.10 and 11. by communication dated August 29, 1986, the Central Government desired to
know the factual position as to why the name of the appellant was not
recommended. Central Government wanted to know if there had occurred any
deterioration in the performance of the appellant after his name was included
in the Select List which, rendered him unsuitable for appointment to the Indian
Administrative Service and if that was so the State Government might consult
the Commission as provided in Regulation 9(2) of the Regulation. In the
Communication it was also mentioned that if any charges of grave lapse in the
conduct and performance of duties on the part of the appellant had been
established, then the State Government might request the Commission alongwith
full facts of the case for holding a special review of special review of the
Select List so that the name of the appellant might be removed therefrom as
provided in second proviso to Regulation 7(4) of the Regulation. It was pointed
out that officers junior to the appellant in the select list could be appointed
only after either the appellant was also appointed or his name was deleted from
the select List. 4 vacancies including the vacancy against which the appellant
was included in the 1986 Select List were carried over to 1987 Select List and
the following officers had been included against these 4 vacancies in 1987
Select List.
Sr.
No. Name of Officer Date of Appointment
1. P.
V. Dikshit 22.9.1987
2. S.
A. Engineer 6.11.1987
3. A.
R. Dalwai 6. 11.1987
4. A.
M. Reddy Hippagekar 6.11.1987 Since the name of the appellant was not forwarded
to the Central Government he approached the Tribunal and by judgment dated
February 15, 1990 the Tribunal directed the State Government to appoint him to
the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of 1987 Select List.
The
appellant, it would appear , filed a review petition before the Tribunal
praying for a direction that he be promoted on the basis of the Select List of
1986. The Tribunal rejected this review petition by order dated April 19, 1990. C.A. 1092 OF 1992 is against that order of the Tribunal passed
on review petition of the appellant.
Before
the tribunal, the State Government justified its action as to why the name of
the appellant had not been recommended for appointment and that it had been
done on account of pendency of the charges against him. The Tribunal noted that
the departmental enquiry had been closed holding that the appellant had no
direct involvement in the alleged irregularities and that there was, therefore,
no reason as to why the integrity certificate as on 1987 pertaining to the
appellant could not have been withheld. It was on this basis that the OA' filed
by the appellant before the Tribunal was allowed to that extent. The Tribunal
also found that the allegation against the appellant pertained to period prior
to 1986. Appellant submitted that on account of the finding of the Tribunal he
had lost one year and while he should have been promoted to the Indian
Administrative Service in 1986, he was so promoted in the 1987 and that too on
the direction of the Tribunal. The appellant also claimed salary as he said
worked on the cadre post since 1986. Cadre post means any of the posts
specified as such in the regulations made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the
Cadre Rules.
We do
not think it is a case where this court should interfere in any of the two
orders of the Tribunal. It is not that it was without any reason that the State
Government did not issue "no deterioration certificate" in the case
of the appellant and did not recommend his name for promotion to the Indian
Administrative Service. There were serious allegations against the appellant
which were being inquired into though these related to the period 1980 when the
appellant was working as District Supply officer, Sholapur.
It is
not necessary for us to go into those allegations as that chapter is now
closed. It is not that any mala fide is alleged against the action of the State
Government. We also find that the appellant has not suffered in his seniority
in the State of Maharashtra as far as the promotee officers are
concerned inasmuch as because of his not getting "no deterioration
certificate" officers suffered more as they could not be promoted till the
appellant was either promoted or his name deleted from the Select List. Since
the appellant was promoted to the Indian Administrative Service in 1987 he
could not draw salary as an officer belonging to Indian Administrative Service
for the year 1986 though he might have held a cadre post.
We,
therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal for
us to interfere. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however,
be no order as to costs.
Back