http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SH.ASHOK V.DAVID SH. M.G. HALAPPANAVAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: G.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 10TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.N. Ray                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.L Hansaria C.S. Vaidyanathan,  and  Dr.  Rajiv  Dhawan,  A.K.  Ganguli, Sr.Advs., Raju  Ramachandran, S.R.  Bhat, N.R.Nath, Ms.Kiran Bhardwaj, Advs. with them for the appellants. M.L.Bhat, Sr.  Adv. S.Wasim Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Ms.Sangeeta Kumar, S.K.  Kulkarni, K.R.  Nagaraja, P.Mahale, Advs., with him for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Judgment of Court was delivered: HANSARIA, J.      Leave granted. 2.   The  appellants,   who  were  direct  recruits  to  the Karnataka  Administrative   Service  had   become  due   for consideration for  promotion to  the  Indian  Administrative Service (IAS) in the year 1982 in accordance with the Indian Administrative   Service    (Appointment    by    Promotion) Regulations, 1995.   They  were, however,  not so considered because they  did not come within the zone of consideration, as in  the seniority list their position was low, and as, to come within  zone of  consideration the number of persons to be considered  can be only twice, they were left out.  It is not in  dispute that their seniority position was changed to their advantage  subsequently.   It is  also not  in dispute that had their position in the seniority list been correctly reflected earlier,  they would  have been within the zone of consideration, when the selection committee set in December, 1983. 3.   The appellants’  case is  that they  having been denied consideration in  December,  1983  because  of  their  wrong placement in  the seniority list, their promotion to the IAS got delayed,  with the consequential result that proper year of allotment  was not  assigned to  them.   They, therefore, approached the  Central Administrative  Tribunal with prayer to direct  the Union  of India  to give  them the  order  of allotment as 1979 (instead of 1982), which had been given to the persons  who were  really junior  to the appellants, but had been  shown senior  earlier, which  position came  to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

altered subsequently.   This  has been  denied.  Hence these appeals. 4.   The main  contention of  Shri Bhat,  appearing for  the Union of India, was that despite restoration of seniority of the appellants  they could  not have been within the zone of consideration  when  the  selection  committee  was  set  in December, 1983,  inasmuch  as  the  appellants  came  to  be confirmed with  effect from  1.1.1986; and it is a confirmed hand who  becomes eligible  for consideration.  Though there is no  dispute that  formal confirmation  qua the appellants was effective  from 1.1.1986, the case of the appellants, as advanced by Shri Ganguli and Shri Vaidvanathan for them, was that under  the provisions  of  Mysore  Government  Servants (Probation) Rules,  1957, a  probationer, after satisfactory completion of  the period  of  probation,  becomes  due  for confirmation; and  if for unjustifiable reasons formal order of confirmation is delayed, the incumbents cannot be made to suffer.   The learned  counsel appearing  for the  State  of Karnataka, however,  contended that  a probationer cannot be treated to  be a  confirmed employee  merely on satisfactory completion of  probation till  an order  of confirmation  is passed.   This follows, according to learned counsel, from a combined reading of Rules 5 and 9 of the aforesaid Probation Rules.   Despite there  being force  in these contentions of the learned  counsel, we  entertain  no  doubt  that  formal confirmation order  cannot be  unreasonably delayed,  as the delay causes  injury in  those cases where confirmation is a pre-condition for  getting better  service condition, as was in this case. 5.   The facts  relating to  the two  appellants  qua  their confirmation is  that an  order was passed on 14th November, 1997 stating that the Government or Karnataka was pleased to declare that  the officers  had satisfactorily completed the period  of  probation  on  14.7.1976.  Despite  this  formal confirmation was  ordered from  1.1.1986. We do not find any cogent reason fro this undue delay inasmuch from the Revised Gradation List of Karnataka Administrative Service Group ’A’ (Junior Scale) Officers as on 1.1.1990, a copy of which is a pages 144 to 188 of the paper book in appeal arising out SLP (C) no.  12129 of  1994, it  appears from  page 167 that the appellants were  confirmed against  the vacancies  which had occurred  on   25.6.1962  and  4.7.1962.    There  was  thus absolutely no  cogent reason  to confirm  them from 1.1.1986 inasmuch  as   they  had   satisfactorily  completed   their probationery period as early as 14.7.1976.  It is also worth pointing out  that the respondents.  Whose names found place within  the   zone  of   consideration  when  the  selection committee was  made  in  December,  1983,  had  come  to  be confirmed against  vacancies which were occurred on 5.2.1963 and 31.7.1976.  The late confirmation of the appellants can, therefore,  he  taken  as  illustration  of  that  "glorious uncertainty" relating  to confirmation  which  is  known  in service career  and is  amply borne out by confirmation of a judicial officer as a District Judge after he had retired as a Supreme Court Judge. 6.   In the  aforesaid premises,  we have  no doubt that the appellants had  become eligible  for consideration  when the selection committee set in December, 1983 and we, therefore, direct the Union of India to give that order of allotment to the appellants  which is  due to them by treating that their selection for promotion to IAS had taken place, not pursuant to the select list prepared in 1987, but in 1983.  The Union of India  would pass necessary order in this regard within a period of two months from today. 7.   The appeals  are allowed  accordingly, In the facts and

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

circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.