Gudur Kishan
Rao & Ors Vs. Sutirtha Bhattachaarya & Ors [1998] INSC 123 (23 February 1998)
S. Saghir
Ahmad, G.B. Pattanaik G.B. Pattanaik. J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH C.A. NOS 6526-28/94, 6529-31/94 & 750/68
The
eight appeal are directed against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench date 26.8.1994, and involve common questions of law.
By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed the two Notifications dated
15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel
inter alia on the ground that the Notification in question amending the India
Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations (hereinafter
referred to as 'Regulation') contravenes Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative
Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment
Rules). The appellants in all these appeals are the promotees to the cadre of
Indian Administrative Service who had been recruited by way of direct
recruitment to the post of Deputy Collectors in the State Service. Respondents
nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Appeal No 6525 of 1994 are the direct recruits to the
Indian Administrative Service. These respondents - direct recruit IAS officers
had filed OA No.118 of 1994, challenging the Notifications of the Government of
Indian dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993, as already stated. Another direct
recruit IAS officer had filed OA No 542 of 1994 and yet another direct recruit
IAS officer had filed OA No. 543 of 1994 and all the three OAs were disposed of
together by the Tribunal by order dated 26.8.1994. Though the dispute
essentially centers round the year of allotment in the cadre of Indian
Administrative Service between the direct recruits and the promotees but the
said dispute arises because of several earlier orders passed by the Tribunals
and the two Notifications were issued by the Union Government in implementation
of the directions of the Tribunal. It would, therefore, be necessary to set out
facts in brief.
The
appellants were initially recruited to the post of Deputy Collectors in the
State of Andhra Pradesh and were appointed by order dated
29.12.1978 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. On getting posting
orders in different places in the State one of them (Umamalleswar Rao) joined
his post on the very next day as his posting was at Hyderabad itself. The other appointees joined
their respective posts on different dates in January 1979 depending upon the
time that was required for them to go and join the post. The State Government
issued G.O. No. 493 dated 8.4.1992, indicating that the services of these
officers would count from the date on which the respective higher rank holders
in the merit list joined the duty in January 1979. On account of the aforesaid
Government Order Umamalleswar Rao's date of joining became 18.1.1979 though
factually he had joined the duty on 13.12.1978. Under the Provisions dealing
with promotion to the IAS cadre, an officer belonging to the State Civil
Service must complete 8 year of service on 1st January of the year in which the
Select Committee meets in order to be eligible for being considered for
promoting. Umamalleswar Rao who and factually joined as Deputy Collector on
13th December, 1978, but was deemed to have joined the post on 18.1.1979
because of the Government Order dated 8.4.1982 was not eligible for being
considered for promotion in the year 1987 as he could not complete 8 years by
1.1.1987. He therefore, filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal which was registered as R.P. No. 9173 of 1987
contending therein that his services from the date of his joining on the post
of Deputy Collector 13th December, 1978 should be counted. Similar applications
were also filed by some other officers which were registered as R.P. No. 7311
of 1987 and R.P. No 7194 of 1987. In case of Umamalleswar Rao the Tribunal
granted an interim direction that his case be placed before the select
Committee who is to prepare Select List for the year 1987. The Select Committee
which met on 15.12.1987 considered the cases of 26 officers for promotion who
has completed 8 years of service on 1.1.1987.
The
number of vacancies which were anticipated for being filled up by promotion was
13. All the 26 officers who were considered by the Selection Committee were
included in the Select List for the year 1987 as the Select List was to be
prepared for twice the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee also gave
their respective positions in the Select List. Out of the said Select List 7
were promoted to the IAS earlier to 16.12.1988 and 5 were promoted w.e.f
16.12.1988.
The
13th man in the Select List was not promoted as certain enquiry against him was
pending. The 14th man, one Shri Ram Chandra Murthy filed an application before
the Tribunal, which was registered as OA No 223 of 1989, claiming that he was
entitled to be promoted against 13th vacancy. That application was allowed by
the Tribunal and special Leave Petition against said judgment by the Union of
Indian stood dismissed. He was, therefore, appointed to the Indian Administrative
service w.e.f 16.12.1988 the date on which the vacancy was available. In the
meantime, the State Tribunal heard the Petitions filed before the Tribunal by
the Promotes and by Order dated 22.3.1988 quashed G.O.M No 493 dated 8.4.11982
and held that the services of the Deputy Collectors has to be reckoned from the
date of their appointment and the case of such of the Deputy Collectors who had
not been considered for being included in the Select List of IAS of 1987 on
account of non completion of 8 years of service by 1.1.1987 should be
reconsidered. In implementation of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal
Government order was issued on 31.5.1990 regularising services of the
appellants with effect from the date of their appointment order i.e. 29.12.1978.
The appellants, therefore, made a Representation to the government to review
1987 Select List for the IAS. Since on orders were passed on the
representation, two Petitions were filed before the Tribunal being OA No. 442
of 1988 and OA No 206 of 1991 for a direction to the Authority to constitute a
Review Committee for re-drawing up of the Select List for the year 1987. The
Tribunal disposed of those matters by Order dated 21.1.1992 directing the
Government to constitute a Review Committee and to review the case of all those
who became eligible for consideration on completion of 8 years of service by
1st January, 1987 and if, ultimately they are found suitable to promote them to
the IAS with effect from the date their juniors were promoted. In accordance with
the direction of the Tribunal as aforesaid, the Selection Committee was
constituted and on re-consideration of the case of the appellants along with
other similarly situated officer, 14 of them were included in the Revised
Select List, thus the Select List for the year 1987 consisting of 26 officers
initially selected and 14 others additionally selected. The Selection committee
also thought it appropriate not to disturb the members of the original Select
list, under such circumstances the State Government thought it appropriate to
create supernumerary post in the IAS to accommodate 14 officers who were
brought into the Select List of 1987 on reconsideration. The State Government
sent the necessary proposal to the Central Government and at that stage some of
the direct recruited officers of the IAS filed application before the Tribunal
which was registered as OA No 457 of 1993, contending that the proposal of the
State Government for creation of 14 additional supernumerary posts in the IAS
is without jurisdiction. That application was disposed of with the direction to
the State Government to consider and dispose of Representations filed by the
direct recruits in accordance with law. The Central Government examined the
proposal of the State Government and finally issued the Notification dated
15.12.1993, by which Notification the Cadre Strength Regulation was amended for
the State of Andhra Pradesh and 14 supernumerary posts were created. The
Government of Indian further issued a Notification on 16.12.1993, appointing
the 14 persons of the State Civil Services to the Indian Administrative Service
who were brought into the Select List of the year 1987 by the Review Selection
Committee. A Review Petition appears to have been filed by the State Government
at the instance of the Central Government before the Tribunal and Contempt
petition also have been filed by the present appellants before the Tribunal but
all those petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal on a finding that the
directions of the Tribunal have been duly complied with and the earlier order
of the Tribunal does not contain any error on the face of the order requiring
to be reviewed. The direct recruit IAS officers being aggrieved by the
Notifications of the Government of Indian 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993, approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Said Tribunal by the impugned order
dated 26 August, 1994, having allowed the same and having
quashed the Notification, the present appeals have been preferred.
Mr.
Salve the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that
the Notification dated 15.12.1993 though purports to be an amendment to the
Regulation but the same having been issued in exercise of powers conferred
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All Indian Service Act, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is essentially a rule and that rule
cannot be struck down on the ground that it contravenes Rule 9 of the
Recruitment Rules. The learned counsel further contended the Recruitment Rules
also having been made in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Act and
the Notification dated 15.12.1993 also having been made in exercise of said
power, attempts should be made for harmonising both the rules and at any rate
if both the rules cannot be allowed to operate on a harmonious construction
then the later rule being made for a specified purpose must prevail. Mr. Salve,
the learned senior counsel further argued that by Notification dated 15.12.1993
the cadre strength of Andhra Pradesh has been increased by 12 to accommodate
the State Civil Service officers who were illegally kept out of consideration
while preparing the select list of the year 1987 to implement the orders of the
Tribunal in their favour and by such increase of cadre strength for a limited
period there has been no contravention of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, and
therefore, the impugned judgment of the Central administrative Tribunal is
erroneous. Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
in some of the civil appeals contended that in service jurisprudence creation
of post and recruitment to the post are two different concepts. Under Rule 9 of
the Recruitment Rules the embargo is against recruitment, and therefore, it
prohibits appointment by promotion to the IAS in any State under Rule 8,
exceeding 33 1/3 per cent of the number of posts shown against items 1 and 2 of
the Regulations. But the Notification dated 15.12.1993 merely creates 12 posts
for periods specified therein by increasing the authorised strength of the cadre
and as such it does not contravene Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. Mr. Reddy
the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of Indian
contended with force that special situation having arisen on account of
directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal and against the Said
directions the Union having come to this Court and special leave petition
having been rejected, to implement the directions of the Tribunal the Union
Government had no other alternative than to increase the cadre strength to
accommodate the promote officers in the IAS and in such special situation the
Central Government has exercised powers under Section 3(1) of the Act itself,
and therefore, the Notification issued in exercise of such power could not have
been struck down by the Tribunal.
Mr.
P.P. Rao the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, who
were the direct recruit IAS officers, on the other hand submitted that under
the scheme of service rules and regulations determining the service conditions
of employees in the Indian Administrative Service cadre, it is not possible to
read a particular Notification in isolation. According to Mr. Rao, Section 3(1)
of the Act confers power on the Central Government to make rules regulating the
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the All Indian
Service. In exercise of such power the Central Government has made the
Recruitment Rules of 1954, which prohibits promotion of the number of persons
from State Civil Service to the cadre of IAS in excess of 33 1/3 per cent of
the posts shown in items 1 and 2 of the cadre in relation to the State in
question. The Central Government has also made, in exercise of power under
Section 3(1) of the Act, the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cadre Rules') and Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules
empowers the Central Government to determine the strength and composition of
the cadre constituted under Rule 3 for each State or group of States by framing
regulation in consultation with the State in question. In exercise of the
aforesaid power contained in Rule 4(1) of the Cadre Rules the Central
Government has made regulations and the strength and composition of the cadre
of the Indian Administrative Service of various States have been specified in
the Schedule to these regulations. Under the aforesaid scheme when the central
Government has issued a Notification dated 15.12.1993 thereby creating
additional posts by increasing the cadre strength in item no. 3 of the Schedule
for the State of Andhra Pradesh that would be beyond the power of the
Government under the Regulation inasmuch as the determination of the number of
persons to be recruited indicated in item 3 of the Schedule is dependant upon
the number of posts contained in items 1 and 2 of the said schedule i.e. the
number of senior post under the State Government and Central deputation reserve
at 40 per cent of item 1. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned Notification
having directly contravened Rule 9 of Recruitment Rules the Tribunal was wholly
justified in quashing the said Notification. Mr. Rao also contended that merely
because the source of power exercised by the Central Government in issuing the
Notification dated 15.12.1993 have been indicated to be Section 3(1) of the Act
and Rule 4 of the Rules it cannot have the status of Act or the Rule as it is
merely an amendment to the Cadre Strength Regulation and has rightly been
nomenclatural as Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength)
12th Amendment Regulation, 1993. Such Regulation when on the face of it
contravenes Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, regulation has to be struck down
and consequently there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Mr. Rao also contended that the aforesaid Regulation contravenes Section 3(1-A)
of the Act itself as it prejudicially affects the interest of all those direct
recruits to the Indian Administrative Service on account of the retrospective
operation of the Notification, and therefore, the same has rightly been struck
down. Mr Rao, lastly urged that under the scheme of the Service Rules and
Regulations meant for IAS Only 13 persons could have been in the Select List
for the year 1987 for being promoted to the IAS but effect of the impugned
Notification dated 15.12.1993 and the consequent Notification dated 16.12.1993
is that the Select List for the year 1987 for promotion to the IAS consists of
40 persons which contravenes the Recruitment Rules, and therefore, the impugned
Notifications have rightly been struck down. Mr. Venkat Ramani, the learned
senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents, submitted that the
Notification issued by the Central Government must be read as the language of
the Notification indicates and not on the basis of the source of power in
exercise of which the Notification has been issued and thus construed it is an
amendment to the Cadre Strength Regulation and if the said Regulation
contravenes Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules the same cannot be allowed to operate
and the Tribunal has rightly quashed the same. In support of this contention
the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case
of MOHINDER SINGH GILL * [(1978)2 S.C.R.272].
In
view of the rival submissions at the Bar the following questions arise for our
consideration:
1) The
Notification dated 15.12.1993 whether can be held to be a Rule though
nomenclatural as Regulation amending the Cadre Strength Regulation?
2)
Whether it is possible to construe the Notification and Rule 9 of the
Recruitment rules harmoniously and can the Notification be allowed to operate
notwithstanding the limitation provided in Rule 9 of Recruitment Rules for
promotion of the State cadre officers to the Indian Administrative Service?
3)
When the validity of Rule or Regulation crops up for consideration can the
authority framing the Rules and Regulations take the shelter that it was in
implementation of certain directions of the Tribunal in favour of some
employees and whether such a plea can be sustained even though the Rules and
Regulations framed are found to be beyond the powers of the rule making
authority or is otherwise constitutionally invalid?
4)
Even if the impugned order of the tribunal striking down the Notifications
dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993 can be found fault with, what would be the
appropriate direction which this Court can issue for doing complete justice
between the parties in view of special situation which necessitated the
issuance of the Notification dated 15.12.1993? Before we proceed to answer the
aforesaid questions formulated by us it would be appropriate to notice the very
scheme of the Act, Rules and Regulations determining the conditions of service
of the persons appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, Even prior to
the independence of the country, in a conference held under the Chairmanship of
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel a decision had been taken to create two All Indian
Services such as Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service to
replace the former Indian civil Service and Indian Police. It was further
decided that the recruitment to these two services should be made through the
Federal Public Service Commission on the basis of annual Competitive
Examination. In the very same meeting a further decision had been taken that
maximum of 25% of the cadre post in the All Indian Services should be thrown
open to the State Civil Service Officers and State Police Officers of
outstanding merit. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision the two All Indian
Services were formed and they were put on statutory basis under the Indian
Civil Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1950. The Parliament then passed the
All Indian Services Act, 1951 under Article 312(1) of the Constitution which
empowers the Government of Indian to make after consultation with the State
Government, rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service
of the persons appointed to an All Indian Service.
In
exercise of poser under Section 3 of the Act - The Recruitment Rules, The Cadre
Rules, The All Indian Services (Conditions of Service - Residuary matters)
Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Residuary Rules) have been made by
the Central Government. The Cadre Rules enables the Central Government to
determine the strength and composition of the cadre in each State by framing
regulation and in exercise of such power the Cadre Strength Regulation, 1955
has been framed by the Central Government and not only the total authorised
strength of the cadre for each State has been indicated but also in indicates
the number of post for different categories of posts within the cadre. Thus,
the Act, the Rules and the Regulation are a complete set of provisions dealing
with different aspects of the service conditions to the Indian Administrative
Service and the entire scheme contained in these rules and regulations have to
be borne in mind in answering the questions formulated by us.
So far
as the first question is concerned, the Notification dated 15.12.1993 on the
face of it is an amendment to the Cadre Strength Regulation, 1955 and by the
said Notification 14 posts against item no 3 to be filled up by promotion and
selection in accordance with Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules have been
increased for the period indicated in the notification. The obvious necessity
for increasing the cadre strength so far as item no. 3 of the Schedule of the
Cadre Strength Regulation is to accommodate the 14 State Civil Service Officers
who had been excluded from the purview of consideration while drawing up the Select
List for the year 1987 and in whose favour the Tribunal has issued certain
directions. The Cadre Strength of the Indian Administrative Service for each of
the State is fixed by the regulation which regulation is framed in exercise of
power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Cadre Rules. This being the position the
notification increasing the number of posts in respect of item no 3 of the
schedule relating to Andhra Pradesh as well as the increase of the total authorised
strength of the cadre in Andhra Pradesh is nothing but an amendment to the
Regulation in question, and therefore, notwithstanding the level of
notification that the same has been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the Act read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules and Rule 3 of
the Residuary Rules the same cannot have the status of an Act of the Rule as
contended by Mr. Salve the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. On a
plain grammatical meaning of the words used in the notification being given as
well as the object for which the notification has been issued if borne in mind
the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the said notification is a
regulation amending the Cadre Strength Regulation and called the 12th Amendment
Regulation, 1993.
So far
as the second question posed by us is concerned it is not doubt a cardinal
principle of construction that when Rules and Regulations have been framed
dealing with different aspects of the conditions of service of the employees
the courts would attempt to make a harmonious construction and try to save the
provisions and not to strike down the same. But where it is not possible even
with doing some amount of violence to the language used in the notification to
give a harmonious construction,, then necessarily the court will have no other
option than to set aside a notification if the said notification contravenes
any provisions of the Act or the Rule or is otherwise constitutionally invalid.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle of construction it appears to us that the
impugned amended Regulation cannot be harmoniously construed with Rule 9 of the
Recruitment Rules. Under the Recruitment Rules recruitment to the Indian
Administrative Service can be made by competitive examination; by selection of
persons from among the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service
Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union; by promotion of member
of a State Civil Service; and by selection, in special cases from among the
persons who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection with
the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State Civil Service. So far
as the promotion of members of a State Civil Service is concerned the procedure
is provided in Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules. Under the said Rule 8 the
Central Government on the recommendation of the State Government concerned and
in consultation with the Public Service commission makes recruitment to the
service by promotion from amongst the members of the State Civil Service in
accordance with Regulation to be framed by the Central Government. Under Rule 9
of the Recruitment Rules, there is a prohibition that the number of persons
recruited under Rule 8 in any State and at any time will not exceed 33 1/3 per
cent of the number of post shown against items 1 and 2 of the Cadre in relation
to the State. The Cadre Strength Regulation framed by the Central Government in
exercise of power under sub-rule(1) of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules categorically
fixes the number of posts borne and the strength and composition of the cadre
for each of the States and so far as item no 3 dealing with the promotion by
Selection under Rule 8 of the State Civil Service officers are concerned it has
to be 33 1/3 per cent of items 1 and 2 of the Schedule. That being so, any regulation
merely increasing the number of post in item 3 without any corresponding
increase of items 1 and 2 on the face of it would be violative of the very
mandate of the Regulation and at any rate it would violate Rule 9 of the
Recruitment rules. The Regulation itself having been framed in exercise of
power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules and Rule 8 having
provided that the recruitment by promotion to the service from amongst the
members of the State Civil Service has to be made in accordance with the
Regulation and Rule 9 of the said Recruitment Rules having provided for a
maximum of such promotion, the impugned notification increasing the number of
posts only for State Civil Service Officer to be promoted contravenes Rules 8
and 9 of the Recruitment Rules as well as contravenes the mandate of the
Regulation itself. Having considered the provisions of the Recruitment Rules,
the Cadre Rules and the Cadre Strength Regulation we have no hesitation to come
to the conclusion that the impugned notification dated 15 December , 1993
contravenes Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules and under the scheme of the Act,
Rules and Regulations it is not possible to sustain the notification in
question by giving any harmonious construction to the provisions. The Tribunal,
therefore, was fully justified in striking down the notification dated 15 or
December, 1993.
So far
as the third question is concerned, the same is in relation to the arguments
advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of
Indian as well as Mr. Salve appearing for the appellants - who are officer of
the State Civil Service that since those officers were illegally excluded from
consideration when Select List of the year 1987 was drawn up, they had
approached the Tribunal and Tribunal having issued directions in their favour
the said direction had to be implemented and if on implementation of the same
the Government of Indian has issued the impugned notification, the said
notification must be sustained. In other words, the argument proceeds on the
ground that the valuable right accrued in favour of the officers of the State
Civil Services who were kept out of consideration for promotion when the Select
List of the year 1987 was brawn up cannot be taken away by striking down the
impugned notification under which supernumerary posts were created and
promotions were given to those State Civil Service Officers from the date their
juniors stood promoted. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the
submission of the learned counsel as it appears to us in the proceedings before
the Central; Administrative Tribunal the grievance of these State Civil service
officers was that though they were all appointed by one notification but they
factually joined at different places on different dates depending upon the
distance of the place in question and therefore inter seniority amongst them
cannot be decided on the basis of the factual date of joining. Since some of
the officers who occupied lower position in the list were appointed at
Hyderabad itself on the date the notification was issued, while others senior
to them having been posted at distant places joined much later, when the
question of consideration of promotion to the Indian Administrative service of
the year 1987 cropped up and the Select List was drawn up for that year by
complying the requirement of 8 years service, these senior persons were
excluded from consideration. It is to be noticed that in the same proceedings
the direct recruit IAS officers were not parties as dispute was inter so
between the officers belonging to the State Civil Service who were appointed on
the same date but joined on different dates. The Tribunal granted the relief
and directed that they should be considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative
Service in the year 1987 and the Review Selection Committee considered their
cases and finally included them in the Select List of the year 1987. In view of
the integrated scheme of the Rules and Regulations as discussed earlier and
under the provisions in question since only 13 persons could have been promoted
to the Indian Administrative Service from amongst the officers belonging to the
State Civil Service during 1987 the Select List could have been prepared for
only 26 persons and the Union Government could have promoted only 13 out of
them. The directions of the Tribunal in favour of the officers belonging to the
State Civil Service who were excluded from consideration while drawing up the
original select List for the year 1987 merely conferred a right of
reconsideration and could not confer a right of promotion to the Indian
Administrative Service which would be contrary to the relevant provisions of
the integrated scheme as discussed earlier. On the basis of the revised Select
List of the Year 1987 the Central Government could have promoted only the first
13 of the list as the number of posts which could be filled up from amongst the
officers belonging to the State Civil Service in the year 1987 was only 13. But
instead of following the aforesaid method the State Government and Union
Government proceeded to recruit by promotion all those who were included in the
Select List of the year 1987. Such act on the part of the Central Government
and the State Government is contrary to the provisions of the integrated scheme
of the Rules and Regulations governing the service conditions of the officers
belonging to the Indian Administrative service and therefore it was wholly
beyond the competence of the Central Government to issue the notification date
15.12.1993 increasing the cadre strength in relation to these promote officers
as well as the notification dated 16.12.1993 promoting these officers to the
Indian Administrative Service. Necessarily therefore, the said two
notifications must be held to be invalid and inoperative and have rightly been
struck down by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at we
do not find any infirmity with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
striking down the two notifications requiring our interference.
Now
coming to the fourth question posed by us, namely, what would be the
appropriate direction to do complete justice between the parties we find that
as a necessary consequence of the quashing of the notification dated 16.12.1993
the appointment of the 14 officers included therein to the Indian
Administrative Service with retrospective effect would stand invalidated,
though as a matter of fact the said notification has been given effect to and
most of the State Civil Service Officer promoted thereunder with retrospective
effect might have superannuated in the meantime. In this view of the matter,
the State Civil Service Officers who have been promoted to the Indian
Administrative Service on the basis of the original Select List as well as the
review Select List of the 1987, their appointment need not be disturbed at this
length of time. But so far as their seniority and year of allotment in IAS is
concerned the same has to be re-done in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations, so that, the direct recruits Indian Administrative Officers'
interest will not be adversely affected. This can be achieved by treating only
the first 13 officers of the Review Select List which contains the names of the
total 40 officers in order of merit could be treated to be the officers
promoted on the basis of 1987 Select List and their year of allotment may
accordingly be determined. So far as the officers from serial no. 14 to 40 are
concerned of the said review Select List of the year 1987 while they would be permitted
to continue in Indian Administrative Service but such continuance will not
confer on them the right to count their seniority and year of allotment but
their cases will have to be adjusted in the subsequent year depending upon the
number of vacancies and the posts available for such promotes, and their year
of allotment would be re-determined accordingly. We would further make it clear
that if any of these State Civil Service Officers who were much junior to the
officers who had approached the tribunal on earlier occasion and who had been
appointed on promotion to the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of the
original Select List of the year 1987 their year of allotment has to be
re-determined in view of their position having been pushed down in the review
select List of the year 1987 which contains the names of all the 40 officers.
We decline to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
but we issue the aforesaid directions for the purpose of re-determination of
the seniority and year of allotment of these officers which we think is
necessary in the interest of justice. All these appeals are disposed of
accordingly. There will be not order as to costs.
Back