http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1972

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1546            1973 SCR  (1) 249  1971 SCC  (2) 188  CITATOR INFO :  F          1973 SC2468  (1)  O          1974 SC1631  (19)

ACT: Constitution   of  India-Art.  309  and  the  Punjab   Civil Secretarial  (State  Service  Class III)  Rules,  1952  made thereunder,   if   can   be   modified   by   administrative instructions   issued  by  the  State   Govt.-Whether   such modifications  require  approval of the  Central  Government under s.115 of the States’ Re-organization Act, 1956.

HEADNOTE: The facts in these appeals are similar and the facts in C.A. No. 1639 of 1968 are as follows :-S. the Respondent,  joined Govt.  service  as  a  clerk in  Civil  Secretariat  of  the erstwhile  Pepsu  State.  Pepsu state became a part  of  the State of Punjab in 1956 under the provisions of the  States’ Reorganisation Act 1956, S. was provisionally promoted as an Assistant  in  the Punjab Civil Secretariat but  later,  was reverted as a clerk on the ground that he failed to  qualify the    test   prescribed   under   certain    administrative instructions   issued  by the State Govt.  He filed a  civil suit challenging his reversion.    The  trial Court  decreed the  suit and the appellate court also affirmed the  decree. The High Court, however dismissed the second Appeal filed   by the State. It  was contended before this Court that the  appellants  at the  relevant  tithe,  Was  governed  by  the  Punjab  Civil Secretariat (State Service Class 111) Rules, 1952 and Rule 6 which regulated the appointment of Assistants by  promotion, provided  that posts in the service shall be filled  in  the case  of  assistants  by promotion of senior  clerks  or  by selection from other government official. In  1958, State Government issued instructions that  25  per cent  of  the vacancies in the cadre of  Assistants  in  the Punjab  Civil Secretariat will be filled by  appointment  of suitable personnel from other departments and the  remaining 75  per  cent will be filled by promotion from  amongst  the clerks in the Punjab-Civil Secretariat.  ’the order  further provided that for the purpose of appointment-as  assistants, the  officials will have to sit for a test.   Two  questions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

arose  for  decision in the present case :-(a)  Whether  the Govt.  was competent to add by means of administrative  ins- tructions  to the qualifications prescribed under the  Rules framed  under  Art.  309 and (b) Whether  such  an  addition requires  the approval of the Central Govt. under S. 115  of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Dismissing the appeals. HELD  :  (1) The Government is not competent  to  alter  the rules  framed  under  Art. 309 by  means  of  administrative instructions.   In Sant Ram Sharma v. S. State of  Rajasthan and  another, [1968] 1 S.C.R. III it was decided that  while the  government cannot amendment or supersede the  statutory rules  by  administrative  instructions, if  the  rules  are silent  on  any particular point, the Govt. can  MI  up  the gaps,  not inconsistent With the rules already  framed.   In the  present case, the Rules can be implemented without  any difficulty and their is no gap in the Rules.  ’the  impugned instructions  after the rules relating to promotion.   Hence the instructions in question are void. 17 1208SupCI/72 250 (2)  The  approval  of the Central Government bad  also  not been  obtained  for issuing those instructions in  terms  of proviso to sub-s. (7) of s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and therefore, the instructions are invalid. Mohammad Bhakar and ors. v. Y. Krishna Reddy and ors. (1970) Service Law Reporter u768, followed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1639  to 1641 of 1968. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 14,  1967 of  the  Punjab  and Haryana High Court  in  Regular  Second Appeals Nos. 357, 359 and 418 of 1967 respectively and Civil Appeals Nos. 31 and 1279 of 1969. Appeals  from the judgments and orders dated March 22,  1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos.  536 of 1966 and 836 of 1967 and Civil Appeals No. 2227 of 1969. Appeal  by special leave from the order dated  February  17, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular  Second Appeal No. 1624 of 1968. Bishan Narain and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. Nos. 1639 to 1641 of 1968). V.   C.  Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants  (in C.A. No. 31 of 1969). K.   S.  Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for the  appellants  (in C.A. No. 1279 of 1969). M.   C.  Chagla and R. N. Sachthey, for the  appellants  (in C.A. No. 2227 of 1969). C.   K. Daphtary, Hardev Singh, K. L. Mehta, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraia and M. Qamaruddin, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 1639 of 1968). Hardev  Singh, K. L. Mehta, S. L. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja  and M.   Qamaruddin, for the respondents (in C.A. Nos. 1640  and 1641 of   1968). Hardev Singh, for the respondents (in C.A. Nos. 31 and 1279 of   1969). S.   K. Mehta, Hardev Singh, K. L. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M.   Qamaruddin,  for  the respondent (in C.A. No.  2227  of 1969).  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hedge,  J.-These  appeals by certificate  raise  two  common questions  of law for decision viz. whether  the  Government can by administrative instructions add to the conditions  of service relating

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

251 to  the promotion of a Government servant, prescribed  under Art.  309  of the Constitution and further whether  such  an addition  requires  the approval of the  Central  Government under s. 115 of the States’ Re-organization Act, 1956. For deciding the two questions of law formulated earlier, it would  be sufficient if we refer to the facts of any one  of the aforementioned cases.  Hence we shall refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 1968. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, the respondent in that appeal  joined Government  service  as  a  clerk  in  the  erstwhile  Pepsu Secretariat on January 3, 1955, Pepsu State became a part of the State of Punjab on November 1, 1956 under the provisions of  the  States’ Re-organization Act, 1956.   Shamsher  Jang Bahadur  was  provisionally  promoted  as  an  Assistant  on December  9,  1959  in  the  Punjab  Civil  Secretariat   at Chandigarh.  He was reverted as a clerk on February 3,  1960 on the ground that he failed to qualify the test  prescribed under certain administrative instructions issued on June 21, 1958.  He filed a civil suit challenging his reversion.  The suit  was  decreed  by the trial  court.   That  decree  was affirmed  by the appellate court.  The High Court of  Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the  State. Somewhat similar are the facts in the other appeals. It  was  conceded  before  us that  the  appellants  at  the relevant time were governed by the Punjab Civil  Secretariat (State  Service  Class 111) Rules, 1952 (to  be  hereinafter referred  to as the Rules), in view of certain  instructions issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the States’   Re-organization  Act,  1956.   Hence  it  is   not necessary  to  refer  to  the  Pepsu  Secretariat   Service, Recruitment,  Promotion,  Punishment  and  Seniority  Rules, 1952. Rule   6  of  the  ’Rules’  regulates  the  appointment   of Assistants by promotion.  The relevant portion of that  rule reads "6(1) Posts in the Service shall be filled (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) in    the case of Assistants (ii) By promotion of Senior Clerks; or 252 .lm15 (iii)     By  selection  from among  Officials  employed  in departments of Government other than the Civil secretariat.                             6(2) 6(3)  Appointment to any post by the promotion of  officials already in the service or by transfer of officials  employed in  Government departments other than the Civil  Secretariat shall  be made strictly by selection, and no official  shall have any claim to such appointment as of right." On June 21, 1958, the Government issued instructions to  the effect  that  25 per cent of the vacancies in the  cadre  of Assistants in the Punjab Civil Secretariat will be filled by appointment of suitable personnel from serving officials  in the  offices of the Heads of Departments in the State  while the  remaining 75 per cent will be filled by promotion  from amongst the clerks in the Punjab Civil Secretariat.   Clause (b) of that Order provides               "For  the purpose of appointment of  officials               from  the offices of Heads of  Departments  as               Assistant  in the Punjab Civil Secretariat  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             also   for   promotion  of   Clerks   of   the               Secretariat to the posts of Assistants in  the               cadre,  a test-separately prescribed  will  be               held by the Punjab Public Service  Commission.               For officials belonging to the offices of  the               Heads  of  Departments, this test  will  be  a               competitive one and for the Secretariat Clerks               it  will be a qualifying test.  As at  present               this test will be conducted simultaneously  in               accounts as also in Noting and Drafting.   The               question as to what standard of accounts  test               it would be fair to expect of the examinees is               being considered separately." It  may be noted that herein we are dealing only with  those who   were  promoted  from  the  cadre  of  clerks  in   the Secretariat.   The  first question arising for  decision  is whether  the  Government was competent to add  by  means  of administrative instructions to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules framed under, Art. 309.  The High Court  and the  courts  below  have come to  the  conclusion  that  the Government  was incompetent to do so.  This Court has  ruled in  Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and anr. (1)  that while the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules  by  administrative  instructions, if  the  rules  are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill.  up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent  with the rules already framed.  Hence we  have to see whether the instructions with which we are concerned, so far as they relate to (1)  [1968] S.C.R. 111. 253 the clerks in the Secretariat amend or alter the  conditions of  service prescribed by the rules framed under  Art.  309. Undoubtedly the instructions issued by the Government add to those  qualifications.   By  adding  to  the  qualifications already  prescribed by the rules, the Government has  really altered   the   existing   conditions   of   service.    The instructions issued by the Government undoubtedly affect the promotion  of concerned officials and therefore they  relate to  their  conditions  of service.  The  Government  is  not competent to alter the rules framed under Art. 309 by  means of administrative instructions.  We are unable to agree with the contention of the State that by issuing the instructions in  question, the Government had merely filled up a  gap  in the  rules.   The  rules  can  be  implemented  without  any difficulty.  We see no gap in the rules. There is a further difficulty in the way of the  Government. The   additional   qualification   prescribed   under    the administrative instructions referred to earlier  undoubtedly relates  to  the  conditions of service  of  the  Government servants.  As laid down by this Court in Mohammad Bhakar and ors.  v.  Y.  Krishna Reddy and Ors.  (1),  any  rule  which affects the promotion of a person relates to his  conditions of service and therefore unless the same is approved by  the Central Government in terms of proviso, to sub-s. (7) of  s. 115 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, it is invalid as it  violates  sub-s.  (7)  of  s.  115  of  the  States  Re- organization  Act.  Admittedly the approval of  the  Central Government   had  not  been  obtained  for   issuing   those instructions.   But reliance was sought to be placed on  the letter  of  the  Central Government  dated  March  27,  1957 wherein the Central Government accorded advance approval  to the State Governments regarding the change in the conditions of service obtaining immediately before November 1, 1956  in the  matter  of traveling  allowance,  discipline,  control,

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

classification, appeal, conduct, probation and  departmental promotion.  The scope of that letter has been considered  by this Court in Mohammad Bhakar’s case (supra).  Therein  this Court held that the letter in question cannot be  considered as permitting the State Governments to alter any  conditions of service relating to promotion of the affected  Government servants. For the reasons mentioned above these appeals fail and  they are dismissed with costs. S.N                               Appeals dismissed. (1) [1970] Service Law Report 768. 254