http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SURJIT SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P.WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R                   THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 1997 Present:                Hon‘ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy                Hon‘ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa P.P.Rao, Sr.Adv.,  A.Mariarputham, Ms.Aruna, Advs., with him fro M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. Advs. for the appellants. V.C..  Mahajan,   Sr.Adv.,  Ms.  Sushma  Manchanda,  Ms.Anil Katiyar, Dr.D.C.Vohra,  Arun K.Sinha, Advs. with hin for the Respondents The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The never-ending  dispute between  the direct  recruits and the  promotees has  again surfaced in these appeals. The year 1962  onwards, the  Central Secretariat  Service  Rules (for short, the ‘Rules’) framed under the proviso to Article 309 of  the Constitution  of India provided a ratio of 1/5th and 5/6th  between the direct recruits and the promotees. On July 1,  1982, the  ratio was  changed to  1/5th  and  4/5th between the  direct recruits and the promotees respectively. In the year 1983, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the  promotee officers  titled H.N.  Hardasani & Ors. vs. Union of  Indian &  Ors., This  Court had  directed that the unfilled vacancies  meant for  the direct  recruits might be carried forward  for being  filled up  by the  promotees.  A statutory shape  was given to the said direction by amending the Rules. In these cases, we are concerned with the Section Officer in  the Central  Secretariat. Whin  fresh  seniority list was  being prepared,  another writ  petition came to be filed titled  Amrit Lal  & Ors.  vs. Union  of India & Ors., This Court  directed therein  preparation of  the  seniority lest in the light of the direction given by this Court which stood  transformed   into  Amended  Rules.  Consequently,  a seniority list had been prepared giving due placement to the direct recruits  and the  promotees in  accordance with  the rota and  quota as operating under the Rules. Again, a third round of  litigation had  been  started  by  filling  of  an Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal  in the  impugned order made in O.A. No. 629 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

1994, on  March 22,  1995 and  the  review  order  following therefrom on  May 23,  1996, has put the clock back, stating that prior  to the amendment of the Rules putting two years’ limitation carry  forward of  the vacancies  meant  for  the direct recruits  would mean  that earlier  to that  date the Government of  India had  no  power  to  carry  forward  and thereafter,  when   the  Rules  had  come  into  force,  the Government had  power to carry forward the vacancies limited to two  years. Therefore, all the promotions made earlier to the amendment  of the Rules must be held to have been thrown open to  the promotees  and subsequently,  as and  when  the vacancies would  not be  filled up  within  two  recruitment years, after the amendment has been brought into force after expiry of  two recruitment  years, brought  into force after expiry of  two recruitment  years,  the  unfilled  vacancies reserved for  direct recruits  would also  be thrown open to the promotees; the seniority list is required to be prepared afresh in that manner. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      In is  seen that  Rule 13(1)  of the Rules dealing with recruitment of  Section Officers of the Central Secretariat, reads as under:      "One-sixth   of   the   substantive      vacancies in  the Section Officers’      Grade in  any cadre shall be filled      by  direct   recruitment   on   the      results    of    the    competitive      examinations held by the Commission      for this purpose from time to time.      The remaining  vacancies  shall  be      filled  by   the  filled   by   the      substantive appointment  of persons      included in the Select List for the      Section  Officers’  Grade  in  that      cadre. Such  Appointments shall  be      made in  the order  of seniority in      the Select  List  except  when  for      reasons to  be recorded in writing,      a person  is not considered fit for      such appointment in his turn."      A reading of this rule would clearly indicate that one- sixth/one-fifth, as  per subsequently  amended Rules  of the substantive vacancies (posts) in the Section Officers’ grade in any  cadre shall  be filled  by direct recruitment on the results of  the competitive  examinations held  by the Union Public Service  Commission for  this purpose  from  time  to time. In other words, the rule is imperative and unequivocal that  one-sixth/one-fifth   vacancies   meant   for   direct recruitment shall be filled only by direct recruitment after due recruitment  is made  by direct  recruitment  after  due recruitment is  made by  the UPSC  and appointments  made by Government form  time to  time. The  unfilled  spilled  over vacancies shall  be filed  up with  the promoteed  from  the select list.  It  must  be  for  two  years  from  the  last recruitment year.  Consequent upon  the directions issued by this Court,  the rule  came to be amended and the two years’ limitation was introduced which reads thus;      "G.S.R.21 In exercise of the powers      conferred by the proviso to article      309  of   the   Constitution,   the      President    hereby    makes    the      following rules  further  to  amend      the  Central   Secratariat   Rules,      1962, namely:      1.(1)These rules may called the      Central Secretariat Service (Second

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    Amendment) Rules, 1984.        (2)They shall come into force on      1st July, 1985.      2.   In  the   Central  Secretariat      Service  Rules,  1962  (hereinafter      referred to  as the  said rules) in      rule 12,  in sub-rule  (2) for  the      third proviso,  the following shall      be substituted, namely:-      "Provided  further   that  if   any      person  appointed  to  the  Section      Officers. Grade  is considered  for      promotion to  grade  I  under  this      sub-rule, all persons senior to him      in  the  Section  Officers’  Grade,      belonging to  the Scheduled  Castes      or the  Scheduled Tribes,  who have      rendered not  less than four years’      approved  service  in  that  Grade,      shall  also   be   considered   for      promotion"      3.   In rule 1 of the said rules,-      (i)   after   sub-rule   (1),   the      following proviso shall be inserted      namely:-      Provided that  the  number  of  the      vacancies  to   be  filled  by  the      substantive appointment  of persons      included in  Select  List  for  the      Section  Officers’   Grade   is   a      recruitment year  in a cadre, shall      be   proportionate   to   vacancies      reported  by   that  cadre  to  the      Department   of    personnel    and      Administrative Reforms to be filled      by  direct   recruitment  for  that      year.      Provided further that if sufficient      number  of   candidates   are   not      Available  for   filling   up   the      vacancies in   cadre  in any  year,      either by  direct recruitment or by      appointment of  persons included in      the   select   list   for   Section      Officers,   Grade,   the   unfilled      vacancies  shall  also  be  carried      forward  for   not  more  than  two      recruitment years,  beyond the year      to which  the recruitment  relates,      whereafter the  vacancies, if  any,      still remaining  unfilled, if  any,      still remaining unfilled, belonging      to one  mode of  recruitment, shall      be   transferred    as   additional      vacancies for  the  other  made  of      recruitment".      (ii) in sub-rule (2), for the first      proviso,  the  following  shall  be      substituted, namely:-      "Provided  that   if   any   person      appointed to  the Assistants’ Grade      is considered  for promotion to the      Section  Officers’   Grade  in  any      cadre under  this rule, all persons      senior to  him in  the  Assistants’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    Grade in  that cadre  and belonging      to the Scheduled Castes."      A reading thereof would indicate that the number of the vacancies to  be filled  by the  substantive appointment  of persons included  in Select  List for  the Section Officers’ Grade  in   a  recruitment   year  in   a  cadre,  shall  be proportionate to  vacancies reported by that cadre, shall be proportionate to  vacancies reported  by that  cadre to  the Department of  Personnel and  Administrative Reforms  to  be filled by  direct recruitment for the year. Provided further that if  sufficient number  of candidates  are available for filling up  the vacancies  in a  cadre, in  any  recruitment year, either  by direct  recruitment or  by  appointment  of persons included  in the  select list  for Section Officers’ grade, i.e.  by promotion  the unfilled vacancies shall also be carried  forward for nat mare than two recruitment years, beyond the year to which the recruitment relates, whereafter the vacancies,  if any,  still remaining unfilled, belonging to  one   mode  of  recruitment,  shall  be  transferred  as additional vacancies  for the  other mode of recruitment. In other words,  where  sufficient  number  of  direct  recruit candidates for  the unfilled vacancies are not available for two recruitment  years prior  to the  recruitment year,  all unfilled vacancies  will be  thrown open  to the  respective quotas, namely,  by promotions  and vice  versa, as the case may be. In that view of the matter, this Court held in Amrit Lal’s case as under:      "In spite  of the decisions of this      Court referred  to above,  some  of      the promotee officers in this cadre      went     before     the     Central      Administrative Tribunal  raising  a      fresh dispute  on what  may be said      to be a covered field. The tribunal      had  the   handicap  of  a  binding      judgment in  the field;  yet on the      basis of  materials  placed  before      it, it  came to  conclusions placed      before it,  it come  to conclusions      partly different from what had been      reached by this Court and; rendered      a judgment which is impugned before      us in  this group  of case. We have      heard   parties   at   considerable      length in the month of January this      year and  thereafter when  we  were      satisfied that  the  representation      made to  this Court  on the earlier      occasion  that   there  existing  a      seniority  list  was  perhes**  not      correct, we  called upon  the Union      of India to draw up such a list and      for that  purpose we  adjourned the      proceedings  for   a   considerable      period of  time, it is not disputed      that with  the assistance  of  both      the sides  such a list has now been      drawn up.      We   have   again   heard   counsel      appearing on the two sides and even      allowed  oral   arguments   to   be      addressed  by   an  intervener   in      person. This  Court has  repeatedly      noticed  the   fact   that   public      officers are  more  in  Court  than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    public  offices,  With  a  view  to      doing  complete   justice  to   the      matter and being assured by counsel      on either  and the  representatives      who have filled our Court hall that      if  a   seal  be   given  to   this      litigation,  our  expectation  that      Government business  shall  now  be      carried  on   and  not   litigation      hereafter, we  have agreed  to make      this   further    order   providing      certain       guidelines        for      updating/modifying the  list  which      was drawn up as referred to above.      We are  of the  opinion that with a      view to  doing complete  justice to      the situation,  the  December  1984      Rules should be made operative from      1.7.  1984   instead  of  1.7.1985.      These  Rules  have  now  a  limited      provision  of   carry  forward   of      vacancies to be filled up by direct      recruits and  that is  a  two  year      period.    The    entitlement    to      substantive     recruitment      to      substantive  recruitment   to   the      cadre is on an eight year period of      qualifying service.  Entitlement as      qualified officers  in the field is      one matter and recruitment into the      cadre  on   substantive  basis   is      another. It  may be  noted that 20%      is reserved for the direct recruits      and the  remainder is  available to      the promotees.      We do not consider it apropriate to      dispose of the matter now and leave      the litigant  again to come in some      form. Therefore,  we adjourn  these      proceedings  by   two  months   and      require  the  Union  Government  to      update/modify the list scrupulously      following every  provision  of  the      relevant rules  and the regulations      and    place     the    list    for      consideration of  the Court  on the      adjourned date.  A copy of the list      as prepared  may be  served on  the      counsel for  either side  a week in      advance so  that they would be in a      position     to      make     their      representations on that date."      In the  light of  these directions,  it is obvious that the Government of India had prepared the seniority list. The contention of  the promotees  which was  found acceptable to the Tribunal  that  preceding  the  date  of  amendment  the Government was devoid of power to carry forward all unfilled vacancies  to   the  direct  recruits  and  that  all  these vacancies are  meant to  be thrown open to the promotees, is clearly a  misinterpretation of  the rules and on that basis the directions came to be issued by the Tribunal. This Court had suggested  on earlier  occasion that vacancies meant for the direct  recruits may  be carried  forward for  two years after the  recruitment  year  and  thereafter  the  unfilled vacancies would  be thrown  open to  the respective  cadres.

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

Under these  circumstance, the view respective cadres. Under these circumstances,  the view  of the  Tribunal is  clearly illegal; unfortunately,  Tribunal has wrongly stated that if they commit  mistake, it  is for  this Court  to correct the same. That  view of  the Tribunal  is not  conductive to the proper functioning  of judicial service. When a patent error is brought  to the  notice of  the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct, with grace, its mistake of law by way of review of the its order/directions.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the  Tribunal is  set aside.  As a  result, the seniority list prepared  by the  Central Government needs to be redone as per the law now declared. No costs.