http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MRS. P.K. SANDHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIV RAJ V. PATIL,HON’BLE SPEAKER LOK SABHA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               WRIT PETITION (C) NO.69 OF 1997                          O R D E R      Writ petition  No. 785/95  has been  filed by Mrs. P.K. Sandhu, one  of the  in service  officers in  the Lok  Sabha Secretariat, seeking issue of a writ of Quo Warranto against respondent Nos.5  to 10  to show  their functioning in their respective  capacities,   viz,  Respondent   No.5  &   6  as Additional  Secretaries,  Respondent  No.7  to  9  as  joint Secretaries  and   Respondent  No.10  as  Secretary  to  the Speaker, Lok  Sabha. After  Perusal   of the relevant Rules, this Court  after hearing  the counsel  at length passed the following order on August 2,1996:      "The     petitioners,     inservice      officers   in    the   Lok    Sabha      Secretariat,  are   questioning  in      this writ petition the appointments      of respondent  No.5 to 9, two Addl.      Secretaries   sand    three   joint      Secretaries, on deputation. Article      98 of the Constitution provides for      secretariat  to   each   House   of      parliament  and   the   secretarial      staff to assist the Hon’ble Speaker      and Hon’ble  the  Chairman  of  the      Rajya Sabha respectively. Under its      proviso,  common   posts  in   both      Houses     of     Parliament     is      permissible.   By    operation   of      Article 98(2) the parliament may by      law, regulate  the recruitment, and      the  conditions   of   service   of      persons    appointed,     to    the      secretarial staff  of either  House      of parliament.  until the provision      is  made  in  this  behalf  by  the      parliament  ,  clause  (3)  of  the      Article provides that the President      may, after  consultation  with  the      speaker of  the House of the people

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    or the  Chairman of  the Council of      States as  the case  may  be,  make      rules regulating  the  recruitment,      and   the conditions  of service of      persons    appointed,     to    the      secretarial staff  of the  house of      the  people   or  the   Council  of      States, and any rules so made shall      have   effect    subject   to   the      provisions of  any law  made  under      the said clause.      In exercise of the said power under      clause  (3)   of  Article   98  the      President    of     India     after      consultation   with   the   Speaker      framed      rules  called  the  Lok      Sabha Secretariat  (Recruitment and      Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955.      Rule  4   provides  the  method  of      recruitment.  Sub-rule  (1)  clause      (a) provides method by promotion of      any   person    employed   in   the      Secretariat;    clause    (b)    by      permanent transfer or deputation of      a  person   serving   outside   the      secretariat in  connection with the      affairs of the union or of a State;      (C) by direct recruitment. Sub-rule      (2) of  Rule 4 empowers the speaker      by order  to specify  the method or      methods by  which post  or class of      posts may  be filled, determine the      proportion  of   vacancies  to   be      filled by  such method  and in case      of   recruitment    by   promotion,      specify the  class of  officer who,      and the conditions subject to which      they, shall  be eligible  for  such      promotion from time to time. Rule 5      prescribes the  qualifications  for      recruitment with  which we  are not      presently concerned.      It would  appear that  though  from      time to  time the  Rules came to be      amended   with    regard   to   the      recruitment  and   appointment   of      various officers,  as  regards  the      appointment   to   the   posts   of      Secretary  and   Joint  Secretaries      initially they remained appointment      by promotion  100% and no amendment      in that  behalf came to be made. It      would appear  that due  to increase      the   work   in   the   Lok   Sabha      Secretariat  the  Speaker  convened      the  meeting   of  the   opposition      leader and Floor leaders of all the      political  parties  .  Thrice,  the      leaders  had   met  and  they  have      decided  certain  procedure  to  be      adopted in recruitment the posts of      various categories.  For the  posts      of   Secretaries    which   include      Additional Secretaries   and  joint      Secretaries, suggestions came to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    made for  appointment by promotion,      so long as the inservice candidates      are available and merit and ability      alone   should    be   taken   into      consideration in giving promotions.      Where inservice  candidates are not      available for promotion, candidates      serving  outside   the  Secretariat      would be   taken  on    deputation.      Pursuant to  that recommendation of      the   Committee,    the   Secretary      General   has    called   for   the      prevailing   procedure   in   other      departments, At that stage, pending      decisions, respondent  Nos.5 to  10      came to be drafted on deputation as      Additional  Secretaries  and  Joint      secretaries.      It is seen that the statutory rules      having  been   made,  one   of  the      methods  as   provided  under  rule      4(1)(b) is, by deputation. it would      be  obvious   that   drafting   the      officers serving  in the  U.O.I  or      States  outside   the   Lok   Sabha      Secretariat would  be  inconsistent      with,  unless  suitable  amendments      are made to the Rules. When we have      asked  the   learned  counsel   for      respondents to  place before us any      orders that  might have been passed      by  Hon’ble  the  Speaker  in  that      behalf, he placed the entire record      before  us.  We  have  perused  the      record and  found that  there is no      statutory amendment  to  the  rules      came to  be made.  We    find  some      orders  but   do  not   cover   the      aforesaid offences.  We are assured      by   the   learned   counsel   that      expeditious steps would be taken to      have the rules amendment as per law      and place  before  us  for  further      consideration . it would be obvious      that  to   improve  efficiency   of      administration and  also to enthuse      discipline  and   inculcate   among      inservice officers  the  spirit  of      competence,     efficiency      and      excellence,    opportunities    for      promotions are  necessary. it would      provide  impetus   to  achieve  the      above objectives.  This aspect also      needs  to   be  kept   in  view  in      amending  the  rules.  The  counsel      sought  for   and  is  granted  two      months time  to take  the steps  in      that behalf and place before us the      relevant amended  rules for further      hearing in the matter.      Post immediately after two months."      In furtherance  thereof , the Speaker amended the Rules and issued  the Order   dated  October 19, 1996. it has been duly published  and came into force with effect from October 19,1996. The title of the order reads as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    "The Lok Sabha Secretariat (Methods      of  Recruitment   and   Eligibility      Conditions     for     Appointment)      Amendment order, 1996."      By operation  of clause  (2), this  order has come into force with  immediate effect.  The  method  of  recruitment, eligibility conditions   for  appointment for  the posts  of joint Secretary,  Additional Secretary and Secretary General in the Lok Sabha Secretariat shall be , by operation of Rule 1 thereof, as indicated in the Scheduled attached thereon.      The Schedule  mentions that  for  the  posts  of  Joint Secretary in  the scale  of Rs.5900-6700/-,  the  method  of recruitment is  75% by  promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation;  and 25%  by transfer on deputation; provided that the  Speaker may,  at his discretion, fill up a vacancy falling to  the share  of the  transfer on deputation by the method  of   promotion.  The   eligibility  conditions   for promotion have  been mentioned  in  column  3,  namely,  "By selection from amongst officers holding posts of Director in the Lok  Sabha Secretariat  in   the pay  scale of  Rs.4500- 5700/- with at least three years of service in the scale and a total of seventeen years of service in Group ‘A’ posts. For the purpose of this provision, service in Group‘A’ posts will  also   include  service   rendered   in   functionally corresponding posts  prior to their being assigned Group ‘A’ scales." For  transfer on  deputation, it  is  mentioned  as under:      "By selection from amongst:      1. officers  belonging to All India      Services/Central  Services  holding      posts   of   Joint   Secretary   or      equivalent  or  officers  of  these      services who have been approved for      appointment as joint Secretaries by      the  respective  Cadre  Controlling      Authorities.      2.   Officers    of    the    state      Legislature  secretariats   holding      posts comparable  to that  of joint      secretary  in   the  Government  of      India,  that   is,  the   scale  of      Rs.5900-6700 OR  officers of  these      Secretariats who have been approved      for appointment  to the  said posts      on  the   said  scales   by   their      respective    Cadre     Controlling      Authorities.      The   period    of   transfer    on      deputation  shall   not  ordinarily      exceed three years."      Similarly, for  the post  of Additional Secretary;, the conditions have been mentioned as under:      "FOR PROMOTION      By selection  from amongst officers      holding posts of joint secretary in      the Lok  Sabha Secretariat  in  the      scale of  pay of Rs.5900-6700, with      atleast three  years of  service in      the scale  and a  total  of  twenty      years of service in Group‘A’ posts.      For the  purpose of this provision,      service in  Group  ‘A’  posts  will      also include  service  rendered  in      functionally  corresponding   posts      prior to their being assigned Group

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    ‘A’ scales.      FOR TRANSFER ON DEPUTATION      By selection from amongst:      1    Officers  belonging   to   All      India   Services/Central   Services      holding   posts    of    Additional      Secretaries   or    equivalent   OR      officers of these services who have      been approved  for  appointment  as      Additional   Secretaries   by   the      respective    Cadre     Controlling      Authorities.      2    Officers    of    the    state      legislature  Secretariats   holding      posts   comparable   to   that   of      Additional   Secretary    in    the      Government of  India, that  is,  in      the  scale   of   Rs.7300-7600   OR      Officers of  these Secretariats who      have been  approved for appointment      to  the  said  posts  on  the  said      scales by  their  respective  Cadre      Controlling Authorities.      The   period    of   transfer    on      deputation  shall   not  ordinarily      exceed three years."      For the  post of  Secretary, it  has been  mentioned as under:      "By selection  by  the  speaker  in      consultation with the Leader of the      House  and   the  leader   of   the      Opposition from  amongst those  who      have made  their mark by long years      of service  in  the  parliament  or      State  Legislatures  or  the  Civil      Service, appointment  being by  any      of the  methods of recruitment Viz,      Promotion, deputation, contract, as      may be  considered  appropriate  on      each occasion."      Shri  Aruneshwar   Gupta,  learned   counsel  for   the petitioner, contends  that this  Court has  indicated in the order that  to improve efficiency of administration and also to  enthuse  discipline  and  inculcate,  among  in  service officers,  the   spirit  of   competence,   efficiency   and excellence,  opportunity   for    promotion  would  be  made available. This  method of  reserving 75% recruitment by way of promotion  and giving  option to  call  for  transfer  on deputation from  other sources  is ultra  vires. We  find no force in  the contention. It is seen that the rule indicates that  in   service  candidates   would  be  eligible  to  be considered for promotion to the extnt of 75% of the posts in accordance with  the eligibility  conditions  prescribed  in column 3  thereof. In  that event,  if the officers were not found eligible  to be  promoted, instead of keeping the post vacant and  work suffered,  options have  been kept given to the Speaker  to  take  the  service  of  other  officers  on deputation. Therefore,  the  officers  on  deputation  would remain on  deputation without  any incursion  into  the  75% quota reserved  for the  promoted officers.  As and when the promoted  officers  are  found  to  be  fit  for  promotion, considered and promoted, the deputation officers necessarily would give  place to  the officers  promoted within  the 75% quota. 75%  quota  for  inservice  officers  encourages  the officers and  inculcates spirit of competence, character and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

integrity, Otherwise,  the inservice  officer would lose his chances  of   promotions  to  higher  echelons  of  service. Equally, induction  of officers of competence and ability on deputation of 25% quota will be an opportunity to accelerate competence and  efficiency apart  from improving excellence. Therefore, the  respective quota  is fair   and  in the best interest of  the service.  It  cannot  be  charactersied  as arbitrary.      Similarly, it is contended that the Rules have not been given any  retrospective effect and, therefore, the officers on deputation,  i.e., respondent  Nos.5 to 10 is bad in law. we find  no force  in the  contention. it  is settled  legal position that  Rules would  be operative  from the date when they came  into force,  namely, in  this case,  October  19, 1996. Therefore,  the officers on deputation would get legal right to  remain in service from that date. Though they have been drafted  earlier in consultation with the leader of the opposition etc.,  it is contended that the deputation to the Secretariat service  was not  in accordance  with the  Rules and, therefore  , it  is not  valid in  law. With  a view to remove the  ambiguities, we  had directed  the  Hon’ble  the Speaker to  take necessary  steps by  way of an amendment to the Rules.  In furtherance  thereof, the above Rules came to be made. The Rules are now streamlined.      It is seen that in 1955 Rules, which were framed by the Speaker in consultation with the president by exercising the power under  clause (3) of Article 98 of the Constitution of India, Rule  4 contemplates the method or methods by which a post or  class of posts may be filled. Since the 1962 orders are only  out come  of exercise of the said power, which was further modified by amendment in the order dated December 1, 1974, the  power of  modification of  the original order was still  available   to  the   Speaker  and,   therefore,  the deputation of  respondents Nos.  5 to 10 was not without any authority of law or in excess of authority. Therefore , they are not void ab inition for issue a writ of Quo Warrnato. it is not  necessary for  us to  decide the controversy whether the Speak   had  power, when services of Respondents 5 to 10 were requisitioned and availed of on transfer basis from the All India  Administrative Service  for the reason that under the amended Rules, one of the sources of recruitment  to the service  is   transfer.  Therefore,   the    continuance  of Respondents 5  to 10 on deputation is in accordance with law and their  retention in  Lok Sabha  Secretariat is  Valid as they have  legal authority  to remain  in its  Service.  The further contention  that availment  of the  services of  the Secretary General  on contract  basis is invalid, is without substance. it  is settled legal position that an in services officer, if   taken  on contract  basis during the period of service, renders  service on  contract basic  and on  expiry thereof he  gets to  his  substantive  post  in  the  parent Department from  where he  came to be in the services of the Lok Sabha  Secretariat. In  the interregnum  , he  cannot be compelled to  lose his  lien on  the substantive post in the parent Department.  Even if  the services of an incumbent on superannuation  is required in the public interest, the same can be  availed in  contract basis.  Equally, if  any  other competent officer  who on  attaining superannuation from any other service was required to be taken in due to exigency of the service,  it may  be open  to  the  speak  to  avail  of services of  such an  experienced officer  on contract basis for a  specified period.  Thus in  either event  the  option available to  the speaker  to avail  of the  services of  an experienced officer  as Secretry General, cannot be assailed as invalid or arbitrary.

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

    It is  then contended by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta that the petitioner was recruited through direct recruitment from the state service  op Punjab  and she  has  been  continuing  in service.  The  respondents  have  disputed  the  correctness thereof  .   We  need   not  go  into  that  aspect  of  the controversy. His only contention is that 17 years of service prescribed in  the Rules  for promotion  is unwarranted  and arbitrary. We  do not  find any  merit since the rule making authority is  equally competent  to prescribe the conditions of service  for promotion.  17 years’  service is one of the conditions prescribed  by the  Speaker for  promotion to the next higher post. Under these circumstances, the Rule cannot be characterised  as ultra  vires  of  power.  It  would  be obvious that when promotion is sought to be made with a view to ensure  competence and  efficiency in service, obviously, the Speaker had in view the length of  service as one of the conditions  for   promotion.  Under   these   circumstances, prescription of  length of  service for  promotion is not an arbitrary exerciser  of power  violating Article 14. Whether the petitioner,  Smt. P.K.  Sandhu, would  be considered for promotion  or   not  and      whether   she   fulfills   the qualifications, conditions  of service  are all  matters for the Speaker  to consider and until that exercise is done, we need not go into that controversy.      The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.