02 September 1996
Supreme Court
Download

U O I Vs MOHAN SINGH RATHORE

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-012089-012089 / 1996
Diary number: 2754 / 1996
Advocates: P. PARMESWARAN Vs SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN


1

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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHAN SINGH RATHORE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The respondent  was appointed  in the  Rajasthan  State Police Service.  He was  put in  the select list on December 28,2987. The Union Public Service Commission had approved it on February  2,1988. He was due to retire on May 31, 1988 on attaining superannuation.  His name  along with  eight other candidates, was  included for allotment from the State quota to the Indian Service. The requirements of the Indian Police Service (Appointment  by Promotion)  Regulations, 1955  (for short, the  "Promotion Regulations") envisage that the Union Public  Service   Commission,  under   Regulation  7,  shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with other documents received  from the State Government and, unless it considers any  change necessary,  it shall approve the list. Sub-regulation (4)  is relevant  in this case which provides that the  select list shall ordinarily be in force until its review and revision effected under sub-regulation (4) or (5) is approved under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, is  finally   approved  under  sub-regulation  (2).  As  per regulation 7  (3), the  list as finally approved by the UPSC shall form the select list. Proviso thereto indicates thus:      "Provided further that in the event      of grave  laps in  the  conduct  or      performance of  duties on the State      Police  Service   included  in  the      Select List,  a special  review  of      the select  list may  be made  at a      time at  the instance  of the State      Government and  the Commission may,      if it  so thinks  fit,  remove  the      name of  such member  of the  State      Police  Service   from  the  Select      List." Regulation  9  of  the  Promotion  Regulations,  deals  with Appointment of  the State  Police Service officers to Indian

2

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

Police Service, Sub-regulation (2) thereof reads as under:      "It   shall   not   ordinarily   be      necessary to consult the Commission      before such  appointments are made,      unless    during     the     period      intervening between  the  inclusion      of the  name of  a  member  of  the      State Police  Service in the Select      List and  the date  of the proposed      appointment   there    occurs   any      deterioration in  the work  of  the      member of  the State Police Service      or there is any other ground which,      in  the   opinion  of   the   State      Government    or     the    Central      Government, is  such as  to  render      him unsuitable  for appointment  to      the service."      While making  recommendation, the  State Government  is required to  furnish in  this regard  the "no  deterioration certificate" of  the selected  candidates as  per the letter No.11/4/73-AIS(1) dated  May 22, 1973 of the Union of India, Administrative Reforms  of the Department of Personnel which has been  made part of the Promotion Regulations as decision No.9 which reads as under:      "Having  regard  to  the  provision      contained in  the  proviso  to  the      sub-regulation (4)  of regulation 7      of IAS  (Appointment by  Promotion)      Regulations,   1955,    the   State      Government/Joint  Cadre  Authority,      which  making  recommendations  for      the  appointment  of  a  member  of      State  Civil   Service  to   Indian      Administrative Service, may forward      a  certificate   on  the  following      lines:      "The  State   Government/the  Joint      Cadre  Authority   certifies   that      subsequent to  the inclusion of the      name of  Shri         in the Select      List,    there    has    been    no      deterioration in  his  work  as  to      render    him     unsuitable    for      appointment    to     the    Indian      Administrative Service  nor has any      lapse in his conduct or performance      of duties  in his  part come to the      notice of  the State Government/the      Joint Cadre Authority".      This requirement  is  mandatory  for  the  reason  that before Appointment  of the  persons  to  the  Indian  Police Service,  under   the  Promotion   Regulations,  the   Union Government should receive the certificate from the concerned State Government  or the Union Territory that there has been no deterioration  in the  service of  the incumbent  in  the interregnums as  it  is  mandatory  to  know  the  continued quality, integrity,  honesty and efficiency of the concerned officer.  The   State  Government   had  not  sent  any  "no deterioration certification"  in relation  to the respondent before the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 in relation to  others, came  to be  issued. Since  it did  not contain  the  name  of  the  respondent,  he  could  not  be appointed. When  he filed  O.A.  No.793/92  in  the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by order dated August

3

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

7, 1995  the Tribunal  directed the juniors. It is seen that the Tribunal  does not  appear to  have had any knowledge of the operation of the provisions of Promotion Regulations. It treated them  on per  with  general  principles  of  service jurisprudence and  directed, without  referring  to  any  of relevant rules,  the appellant-Government  to  appoint  him. Therefore, on  principle of law the order of the Tribunal is obviously illegal. It is accordingly set asides.      However, the question is: what would be the relief that could be  granted to  the respondent.  It is  seen that  the State Government  did  not  forward  the  "no  deterioration certificate" in  relation to  the respondent  and after  the retirement  of  the  respondent  the  State  Government  had written a  letter to the Union of India on February 21, 1989 stating as  he was  "well deserving"  candidate. Nothing had prevented the State Government to send the "no deterioration certificate" of  the respondent  along with  certificates in relation to  other candidates  when he was due to retire. It is seen  that they  forwarded the  select list  on April 11, 1988 to  the Government  of India and the respondent was due to retire  on May  31, 1988.  When such  was thee incumbency nothing would  have  prevented  the  State  Government  from forwarding the  letter. Consequently,  the respondent had to lose the  chance for being appointed to the IPS Cadre though he was  found suitable and approved by the UPSC. Under these circumstances, we  think that appropriate direction would be that the  Union  of  India  may  include  his  name  in  the appointment notification  dated October  4, 1988 as a select list candidate  and give  him order  of appointment  letter. Consequently, the  respondent would  be entitled  to all the retiremental benefits on that basis.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.