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

PETITIONER: S.A.ENGINEER ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/12/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon‘ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon‘ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa Ms.Devika Bezbarvah,  Adv. for  Mukul Mudgal,  Adv. for  the appellants. V.C. Mahajan,  Sr. Adv.,  (Rajiv Nanda,  ) Adv. for Mrs.Anil Katiyar,  Adv.   D.M.Nargolkar,  Advs.   with  him  for  the Respondents                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                             With                  Civil Appeal No.1093 of 92 D.P. Wadhwa. J.      The appellant who belongs to State Civil Service of the State of  Maharashtra, it  appears, could  no  get  complete relief from  the Central  Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’),  (New Bombay  Bench), New  Bombay  for  his claim to  be promoted  to the  Indian Administrative Service under the  Indian  Administrative  service  (Appointment  by Promotion) Regulation,  1986. Instead  the Tribunal  granted him relief  to be  promoted to Indian Administrative Service under the aforesaid Regulation for the year 1987.      Selection Committee  for Maharashtra  constituted under Regulation 3 of the Regulations met on December 13, 1984 and prepared a  Select List under Regulation for filling up of 8 vacancies during  the period  of 12  months from the date of the meeting.  The name  of the  appellant  was  included  at Serial No.11 of the Select List. The Select List so prepared is to  be forwarded  to the  Union Public Service Commission (for short  ‘Commission’)  by  the  State  Government  which finally approves  the Select  List.  Under  Regulation  9(1) appointment of  members of  the Sate  Civil Service  to  the Indian Administrative  Service Shall  be made by the Central Government on  the recommendation of the State Government in the order  in which  the names of members of the State Civil Service appear  in the  Select List  for the  time being  in force. The  Commission approved  the select  list. The State Government, however,  did not  operate the  Select List  and sent no  proposal to  the Central  Government and as such no

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

appointment was made from the Select List so prepared to the Indian Administrative Service.      Next Selection  Committee for  the State of Maharashtra met on  December 19,1995  to  prepare  Select  List  towards filling up  of 13  vacancies which  now  existed  and  those anticipated during  the period of 12 months from the date of the meeting.  The name  of the  appellant  was  included  at Serial No.9 of the Select List. The Select List was approved by the  Commission on January 23, 1986. State of Maharashtra sent a proposal to the Central Government for appointment of the officers included at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and 11 of the Select List with "no deterioration certificate" in their favour. The  name of  the appellant  who  was  appearing  at Serial No.9  of the  Select List  was excluded  by the State State  Government   while  forwarding   the   proposal   for appointment of other candidates to the Central Government.      Under Regulation  9(1) the  appointment form the Select List is  to be  made only in the order in which the names of the State  civil Service Officers appear on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government. Accordingly, Central Government notified  the officers  whose names  appeared  at Serial Nos.  1 to 8 of the Select List for their appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. On account of the fact that without making the appointment of the appellant who was at Serial  No. 9,  the Central Government did not act on the recommendation made  by the State Government for appointment of the  State Civil Service Officers whose names appeared at Serial Nos.10  and 11.  by communication  dated  August  29, 1986, the  Central Government  desired to  know the  factual position as  to why  the  name  of  the  appellant  was  not recommended. Central  Government wanted to know if there had occurred  any   deterioration  in  the  performance  of  the appellant after  his name  was included  in the  Select List which, rendered him unsuitable for appointment to the Indian Administrative  Service   and  if  that  was  so  the  State Government might  consult  the  Commission  as  provided  in Regulation 9(2)  of the  Regulation. In the Communication it was also mentioned that if any charges of grave lapse in the conduct and  performance  of  duties  on  the  part  of  the appellant had  been established,  then the  State Government might request  the Commission  alongwith full  facts of  the case for  holding a  special review of special review of the Select List  so that  the name  of the  appellant  might  be removed  therefrom   as  provided   in  second   proviso  to Regulation 7(4)  of the  Regulation. It was pointed out that officers junior to the appellant in the select list could be appointed only after either the appellant was also appointed or his  name was  deleted from  the select List. 4 vacancies including  the  vacancy  against  which  the  appellant  was included in  the 1986  Select List were carried over to 1987 Select List  and the  following officers  had been  included against these 4 vacancies in 1987 Select List. Sr. No. Name of Officer  Date of Appointment      1. P. V. Dikshit          22.9.1987      2. S. A. Engineer         6.11.1987      3. A. R. Dalwai           6. 11.1987      4. A. M. Reddy Hippagekar 6.11.1987      Since the  name of  the appellant  was not forwarded to the Central  Government he  approached the  Tribunal and  by judgment dated  February 15,  1990 the Tribunal directed the State Government to appoint him to the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of 1987 Select List.      The  appellant,  it  would  appear  ,  filed  a  review petition before the Tribunal praying for a direction that he be promoted  on the  basis of  the Select  List of 1986. The

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

Tribunal rejected  this review petition by order dated April 19, 1990.  C.A. 1092  OF 1992  is against  that order of the Tribunal passed on review petition of the appellant.      Before the tribunal, the State Government justified its action as  to why  the name  of the  appellant had  not been recommended for  appointment and  that it  had been  done on account of pendency of the charges against him. The Tribunal noted that  the departmental enquiry had been closed holding that the  appellant had no direct involvement in the alleged irregularities and  that there  was, therefore, no reason as to why  the integrity  certificate as  on 1987 pertaining to the appellant  could not  have been withheld. It was on this basis that  the  OA’  filed  by  the  appellant  before  the Tribunal was allowed to that extent. The Tribunal also found that the  allegation  against  the  appellant  pertained  to period prior to 1986. Appellant submitted that on account of the finding  of the  Tribunal he had lost one year and while he should  have been  promoted to  the Indian Administrative Service in 1986, he was so promoted in the 1987 and that too on the direction of the Tribunal. The appellant also claimed salary as he said worked on the cadre post since 1986. Cadre post means  any of  the  posts  specified  as  such  in  the regulations made  under sub-rule  (1) of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules.      We do  not think  it is  a case where this court should interfere in  any of  the two  orders of the Tribunal. It is not that it was without any reason that the State Government did not  issue "no deterioration certificate" in the case of the appellant  and did  not recommend his name for promotion to the  Indian Administrative  Service. There  were  serious allegations against  the appellant which were being inquired into though  these related  to  the  period  1980  when  the appellant was  working as District Supply officer, Sholapur. It is  not necessary  for us to go into those allegations as that chapter  is now closed. It is not that any mala fide is alleged against  the action of the State Government. We also find that the appellant has not suffered in his seniority in the State of Maharashtra as far as the promotee officers are concerned  inasmuch  as  because  of  his  not  getting  "no deterioration certificate"  officers suffered  more as  they could not be promoted till the appellant was either promoted or  his  name  deleted  from  the  Select  List.  Since  the appellant was  promoted to the Indian Administrative Service in 1987  he could not draw salary as an officer belonging to Indian Administrative  Service for  the year  1986 though he might have held a cadre post.      We, therefore,  do not  find any  error or infirmity in the orders  of the  Tribunal  for  us  to  interfere.  These appeals are,  therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.