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

PETITIONER: R.R. VERMA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1980

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1461            1980 SCR  (3) 478  1980 SCC  (3) 402  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1988 SC 535  (38)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950, Article 133-Writ Petition dismissed as  infructuous-Grant of  Certificate of  fitness, propriety of.      All India  Services  (Conditions  of  Service-Residuary matters)  Rules,   1960,  whether   offends  Article  14  of Constitution, as  conferring arbitrary and uncanalised power upon the  Central Government to grant relaxation whenever it pleased to do so.      Power to  Review its  earlier  orders  by  the  Central Government when  such a     power of review is not expressly conferred by the rules.

HEADNOTE:      One Sri  Ahluwalia a senior member of the Indian Police Service sought  to quash  the decision of the Union of India dated 26-6-1976  whereby his  year of allotment was fixed as 1965. When the Writ Petition of Sri Ahluwalia was pending in the High  Court of Himachal Pradesh, some of the respondents in that  Writ  Petition  and  one  R.  R.  Verma-all  direct recruits, choose  to file  a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court questioning  the notice  dated June  29, 1973  calling upon them  to submit  representations against  the  year  of allotment proposed  to be  allotted to M/s. Sahney, Dhaliwal and Ahluwalia.  After the  Writ Petition  of  Ahluwalia  was allowed, and  after the  Central Government passed the order dated July 27, 1979, pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court  of Himachal  Pradesh to  Union of India to refix the seniority  and year  of allotment  to Sri Ahluwalia, the Delhi High  Court dismissed  the Writ  Petition filed by the direct recruits  as infructuous.  The  High  Court,  however granted a  certificate of  fitness to  appeal to  this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The Writ  Petition having  been dismissed  as infructuous it  is not  proper on the part of the High Court to grant  a certificate  of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution. [480G-H]      2. Rule  3 of  the All  India Services  (Conditions  of

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

Service-residuary matters)  Rules,  1960  is  couched  in  a language suggestive  of near-autocratic power reminiscent of "bad old days" of the Imperial Raj but, the rule is not ment to vest  the Central Government with power to pass any order they like with a view to promote the interests of a favoured Civil servant.  It is  really meant to relax. In appropriate cases, the  relentless rigour of a mechanical application of the rules,  so that  civil servants  may not be subjected to undue and  undeserved hardship.  Sufficient guidance  can be had from  the very  rule and  from the scheme of the various statutory provisions  dealing with the conditions of service of Members of the All India Service. [481G-H, 482A-B]      3. Rule 3 is not unconstitutional on the ground that it vests an  unfettered discretion in the Government. Section 3 of the All India Services Act enables 479 the Central  Government in consultation with the Governments of the  States concerned to make rules for the regulation of recruitment,  and  the  conditions  of  service  of  persons appointed to  an All  India Service.  Pursuant to  the power given by Section 3 of the All India Services Act the Central Government has  made innumerable  sets of rules, some common to all the All India Services and some applicable separately to each  of the  All India  Services. The All India Services (Leave) Rules,  the All  India Services (Conduct) Rules, the All India  Services (Discipline  and Appeal)  Rules, the all India Services  (Travelling Allowance)  Rules, and  the  All India Services  (Conditions  of  Service-residuary  matters) Rules are  examples of rules made under Section 3 of the All India Services  Act which  are common  to all  the All India Services. The  Indian  Police  Service  (Cadre)  Rules,  the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, the Indian Police Service  (Probation)   Rules,  the   Indian  Police  Service (Regulation of  Seniority) Rules  are examples of rules made under section  3 of the All India Services Act applicable to a single  All  India  Service,  namely,  the  Indian  Police Service. The rules deal with countless matters which concern a civil  servant, such  as creation  of cadre,  fixation  of Cadre Strength,  recruitment, seniority,  promotion,  leave, allowances, conduct,  discipline and  appeal, and  a host of such other  matters. The  golden thread,  which runs through the entire complex fabric or rules is the securing of honest and competent  civil servants.  Integrity and efficiency are the hall  marks of  any Civil  service anywhere and they are what are  contemplated and  aimed at  by the  wide range  of rules. The  interest to  be  served  is  always  the  public interest and  not individual  interest. Public  interest, in the matter  of the  conditions of service of civil servants, is  best   served  by   rules  which  are  directed  towards efficiency and integrity. [482B-G & 483D]      Now very wide as the range covered by the rules is, the rules  can  never  be  exhaustive.  Unforeseen  and  complex situations often  arise. Very often it is found that all too strict application of a rule works undue hardship on a civil servant.  resulting   in  injustice  and  inequity,  causing disappointment and  frustration to  the  civil  servant  and finally leading  to the  defeat of the very objects aimed at by the  rules  namely  efficiency  and  integrity  of  civil servants. Hence  it is that the Central Government is vested with a  reserve power  under rule  3 to deal with unforeseen and unpredictable  situations,  and  to  relieve  the  civil servants from  the infliction  of undue  hardship and  to do justice and  equity. It  does  not  mean  that  the  Central Government is free to do what they like, regardless of right or wrong; nor does it mean that the  Courts are powerless to

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

correct them.  The Central  Government is  bound to exercise the power in the public interest with a view to secure civil servants of efficiency and integrity, and when and only when undue hardship  is caused  by the  application of the rules, the power  to relax  is  to  be  exercised  in  a  just  and equitable manner  but, again,  only to  the extent necessary for so  dealing with  the case Moreover, the exercise of the power of  relaxation like  all other  administrative  action affecting rights of parties is subject to judicial review on grounds now well known. [482G-H, 483A-C]      4. It is not correct to say that the principle that the power  to   review  must  be  conferred  by  statute  either specifically or  by necessary  implication is  applicable to decisions purely  of an administrative nature. To extend the principle to pure administrative decisions would indeed lead to untoward and startling re- 480 sults. Surely,  any Government  must be  free to  alter  its policy or  its decision  in administrative  matters. If they are to  carry on  their daily  administration they cannot be hide-bound  by   the  rules  and  restrictions  of  judicial procedure though  of course  they  are  bound  to  obey  all statutory requirements  and also  observe the  principles of natural justice  where rights  of parties  may be  affected. Again,  if   administrative  decisions   are  reviewed,  the decisions taken  after review are subject to judicial review on all  grounds on  which an  administrative decision may be questioned in a Court. [483F-H, 484A]      Patel Narshi  Thakershi and  Ors.  v.  Pradvamunsinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; D. N. Roy and S. K. Banerjee and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 522 and State of  Assam and Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas [1976] 2 S.C.R. 128, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2686 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  27-8-1979  of  the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 844/78.      R.K. Garg and C. M. Nair for the Appellant.      H.S. Marwah for the Respondent No. 6.      V.M. Tarkunde and P. P. Juneja for Respondent No. 7.      Lal Narain  Sinha Att.  Genl., Abdul Khader and Miss A. Subhashini for the Union of India.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-The judgment  in  this  appeal  is really an appendix to the judgment pronounced by us in Civil Appeal No.  2112 of 1979. The relevant facts may be gathered from that  judgment. The  further  events  requiring  to  be mentioned are  these:  While  the  Writ  Petition  filed  by Ahluwalia in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was pending, some of  the respondents  to the Writ Petition and one R. R. Verma all  direct recruits, chose to file a Writ Petition in the Delhi  High Court  questioning the notice dated June 29, 1979, calling  upon them  to submit  representations against the year  of allotment  proposed to  be allotted  to Sahney, Dhaliwal and Ahluwalia. After the Writ Petition of Ahluwalia was allowed,  and after  the Central  Government passed  the order dated  July 27, 1979, pursuant to the direction issued by the  High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the Delhi High Court dismissed the  Writ Petition filed by the direct recruits as infructuous. The  High Court, however, granted a certificate of fitness  to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the

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

Constitution. Therefore,  this  appeal.  The  Writ  Petition having been  dismissed as  infructuous we  do not  see how a certificate under  Article 133 could have been granted. But, we do  not want  to dismiss  the appeal  on that preliminary ground. Shri R. K. Garg, learned counsel for the appel- 481 lants challenged  the order  of the Central Government dated July 27,  1979 on three grounds: (1) Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions  of Service-residuary  matters)  Rules, offended Article  14 of the Constitution and was ultra-vires as it  conferred arbitrary  and uncanalised  power upon  the Central Government  to grant  relaxation whenever it pleased it to  do so.  (2) The  discretion to  relax the  rules  was wrongly exercised  in the  present  case.  (3)  The  Central Government was  powerless to  review its  earlier orders  as such a  power of  review was  not expressly conferred by the rules.      The second  question has  already been considered by us in Civil  Appeal No. 2112 of 1979 and we have held that this was a  fit case for the exercise of the power of the Central Government to relax the rules.      The first question is about the Constitutional validity of rule  3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service- residuary matters) Rules 1960. Rule 3 is as follows:           "3.  Power  to  relax  rules  and  regulations  in      certain cases-Where the Central Government is satisfied      that the operation of-           (i)   any rule  made or  deemed to  have been made                under the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of                1951), or           (ii) any regulation made under any such rule,      regulating  the   conditions  of   service  of  persons      appointed to an All India Service causes undue hardship      in any particular case, it may, be order, dispense with      or relax  the requirements  of that rule or regulation,      as the  case may be, to such extent and subject to such      exceptions and conditions, as it may consider necessary      for dealing  with the  case in  a  just  and  equitable      manner". The submission of Shri Garg was that the rule conferred upon the Central  Government absolute and arbitrary discretion, a discretion  left   entirely  to   the  satisfaction  of  the Government,  Government   with   no   prescribed   objective standards or guidelines. It is true that the rule is couched in  a   language   suggestive   of   near-autocratic   power reminiscent of  "bad old  days" of  the Imperial Raj but, we have no doubt that the rule is not meant to vest the Central Government with  power to  pass any  order they  like with a view to promote the interests 482 of a favoured Civil servant. It is really meant to relax, in appropriate cases,  the relentless  rigour of  a  mechanical application of  the rules, so that civil servants may not be subjected  to  undue  and  undeserved  hardship.  Sufficient guidance can  be had  from the very rule and from the scheme of  the   various  statutory  provisions  dealing  with  the conditions of service of Members of the All India Service.      Section 3  of the  All India  Services Act  enables the Central Government  in consultation  with the Governments of the States  concerned to  make rules  for the  regulation of recruitment,  and  the  conditions  of  service  of  persons appointed to  an All  India Service.  Pursuant to  the power given by Section 3 of the All India Services Act the Central Government has  made innumerable  sets of rules, some common to all the All India Services and some applicable separately

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

to each  of the  All India  Services. The All India Services (Leave) Rules,  the All  India Services (Conduct) Rules, the All India  Services (Discipline  and Appeal)  Rules, the All India Services  (Travelling Allowance)  Rules, and  the  All India Services  (Conditions  of  Service-residuary  matters) Rules are  examples of rules made under Section 3 of the All India Services  Act which  are common  to all  the All India Services. The  Indian  Police  Service  (Cadre)  Rules,  the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, the Indian Police Service  (Probation)   Rules,  the   Indian  Police  Service (Regulation of  Seniority) Rule  are examples  of rules made under section  3 of the All India Services Act applicable to a  single  All  India  Service  namely,  the  Indian  Police Service. The  rules, as  may be  seen, deal  with  countless matters which  concern a  civil servant, such as creation of cadres, fixation  of Cadre Strength, recruitment, seniority, promotion,  leave,   allowances,  conduct,   discipline  and appeal, and a host of such other matters. The golden thread, if we  may so call it, which runs through the entire complex fabric of  rules is  the securing  of honest  and  competent civil servants.  Integrity and efficiency are the hall marks of  any  civil  service  anywhere  and  they  are  what  are contemplated and  aimed at  by the  wide range of rules. The interest to  be served is always the public interest and not individual interest.  Public interest,  in the matter of the conditions of  service of  civil servants, is best served by rules which  are directed  towards efficiency and integrity. Now, very  wide as  the range  covered by  the rules is, the rules  can  never  be  exhaustive.  Unforeseen  and  complex situations often  arise as  will be obvious even from a bare perusal of  the cases  reported in  the Law Journals arising out of  "service controversies". Very often it is found that an all too strict application of a rule works undue hardship on a  civil servant,  resulting in  injustice and  inequity, causing disappointment and frustration to the civil 483 servant and finally leading to the defeat of the very object aimed at  by the  rules namely  efficiency and  integrity of civil servants.  Hence it  is that the Central Government is vested with  a reserve  power under  rule  3  to  deal  with unforeseen and  unpredictable situations, and to relieve the civil servants  from the infliction of undue hardship and to do justice  and equity.  It does  not mean  that the Central Government is free to do what they like, regardless of right or wrong;  nor does it mean that the Courts are powerless to correct them.  The Central  Government is  bound to exercise the power in the public interest with a view to secure civil servants of efficiency and integrity, and when and only when undue hardship  is caused  by the  application of the rules, the power  to relax  is  to  be  exercised  in  a  just  and equitable manner  but, again,  only to  the extent necessary for so dealing with the case. We do not have to add that the exercise  of   the  power   of  relaxation  like  all  other administrative action affecting rights of parties is subject to judicial review on grounds now well known. Viewed in this light we do not think that Rule 3 is unconstitutional on the ground  that  it  vests  an  unfettered  discretion  in  the Government.      The last point raised by Shri Garg was that the Central Government had  no power to review its earlier orders as the rules do  not vest  the Government with any such power. Shri Garg relied on certain decisions of this Court in support of his  submission   :  Patel   Narshi  Thakershi   &  Ors.  v. Pradvamunsinghji Arjunsinghji, D. N. Roy and S. K. Bannerjee & Ors.  v. State  of Bihar & Ors., and State of Assam & Anr.

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

v. J.  N. Roy  Biswas. All  the cases cited by Shri Garg are cases where  the Government  was exercising  quasi  judicial powers vested  in them  by statute. We do not think that the principle that  the power  to review  must be  conferred  by statute either  specifically or  by necessary implication is applicable to  decisions purely of an administrative nature. To extend  the principle  to pure  administrative  decisions would indeed lead to untoward and startling results. Surely, any Government  must be free to alter policy or its decision in administrative matters. If they are to carry on its their daily administration  they cannot be hide-bound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure though of course they are bound  to  obey  all  statutory  requirements  and  also observe the  principles of  natural justice  where rights of parties may  be affected.  Here again,  we emphasise that if administrative decisions are reviewed, the decisions 484 taken after  review are  subject to  judicial review  on all grounds  on   which  an   administrative  decision   may  be questioned in a Court. We see no force in this submission of the learned counsel. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 485