http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: GUDUR KISHAN RAO & ORS.MANOHAR PRASAD,V.M. & ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUTIRTHA BHATTACHAARYA & ORS.THE SECY., GOVT. OF INDIA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/02/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH           C.A. NOS 6526-28/94, 6529-31/94 & 750/68                       J U D G M E N T G.B. PATTANAIK. J.      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

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 * ANR. Vs.  THE CHIEF  ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & ORS. [(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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

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.