A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  v.  

P.C. MISRA  

SEPTEMBER 2, 1993  

B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.]  

Civil Services :  

Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1971-Rules  C 3(2), 18, 30, and 31-fntroduction of Junior Administrative Grade-Selection  

and appointment-Subsequent amendment in the Ru/es-Competence of  Rule making authority and validity of the amendments.  

The Respondents joined the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands  Civil Service and were governed by the Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar  

D Islanus Civil Service Rules, 1971. Initially the service consisted of Grade-I  (Selection Grade) and Grade II. By memorandum dated November 26,  

1987, that Government introduced one more Grade viz. Junior Administra·  live Grade, with effect from January 1, 1986. The relevant provisions  

governing the newly created Grade were introduced by the 1988 Amend·  

E ment in this Rules.  

The Respondents were promoted to Selection Grade and further  

appointed to different posts which later fell in the Junior Administrative  

Grade after the Rules were amended in 1988. Though the Respondents  

F were considered for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade, they  were not selected and some of their juniors were appointed to the Junior  

Administrative Grade on 17.5.1989. The Respondents approached the  

Central Administrative Tribunal challenging their non-selection and the  

Tribunal directed that the respondents should be deemed to have been  

G regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from  1.1.1986.  

Against the Tribunal's judgment, Union of India preferred the  

present appeals.  

H Allowing the appeals, this Court  96

U.0.1. v. P.C. MISRA 97  

HELD : 1. The memorandum dated November 26, 1987 has to be A  -d along with sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 of the Delhi. and Andaman &  

Nicobar Civil Service Rules, 1971 and If thus read it would cover cases of  officers who were eligible on January 1, 1986, the dated of introduction of  the Junior Administrative Grade. Officers who fulfilled the conditions of  eligibility contained in the said memorandum on December 31, 1985 were B  to be appointed on the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from  January 1, 1986 on the basis of the said memorandum and the officers who  acquired the eligibility for such appointment after December 31, 1985  would be governed by the Rules in view of the note appended below  

sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and they could be appointed to the Junior Ad· C  ministrative Grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31. Neither  of the respondents fulfilled the criterion for eligibility mentioned in the  memorandum because both of them did not have four years service in  Selection Grade on January 1, 1986. Since they could not satisfy the  conditions of eligibility upto January 1, 1986, they could not be deemed to  have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with D  effect from January 1, 1986, the date when the Junior Administrative  Grade was introduced. They could be appointed to the Junior Administra·  live Grade only by way of promotion In accordance with the Rules, as  amended by the 1988 Amendment. Their cases were duly considered for  such promotion but they were not found suitable for appointment and were E  not selected. The respondents have not been able to show any infirmity in  the said selection. Since the respondents were not found suitable for  appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade, they cannot make a  claim on the same on the basis that their juniors were appointed to the  Junior Administrative Grade. [103·F-H; 104·A·E) F  

2. The Tribunal was not correct in its view that the 1988 Amendment  could only govern vacancies arising after the coming into force of the 1988  Amendment and that the "vested rights and legitimate expectations' could  not be taken away by retrospective amendment of the Rules. Since the G  Junior Administrative Grade was introduced for the first time with effect  from January 1, 1986 the rule making authority was competent to make  provision for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade after it was  introduced. Amendments introduced in rule 31 by the 1988 Amendment  make provision for such appointments and there is no legal infirmity in H

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2S.C.R.  

A the said provision. (104-E-G]  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4414-15  

of 1993.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.92 of the Central Ad-

B ministrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 1006 & 1140 of 1989.  

WITH  

Civil Appeal No. 4416 of 1993.  

C Ms. Niranjana Singh and Ms. A. Subhashini for the appellants.  

D  

Respondent in person in C.A. 4414-15 of 1993.  

P.P. Rao, V.J. Francis", R.F. Nariman, Sri Narain and Sandeep  

Mathur for the respondents.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.  

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants in the appeals and  

E the respondent in person in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14261- 62/92 and the learned counsel for the respondent in appeal arising out of  

SLP (C) No. 14402/92.  

These appeals are directed against the orders dated March 4, 1992,  

p passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New  Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'. Since they raise common  

questions for consideration they have been heard together and are being  

disposed of by this common order.  

Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service, hereinafter  

G referred to as 'the Service', is governed by the Delhi and Andaman and  Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the  

Rules'. Initially the Service consisted of two grades, viz., Grade I (Selection  

Grade) and Grade II. By Memorandum dated November 26, 1987, the  

Government of India decided that with effect from January 1, 1986, the pay  

H structure of the Service would be as under :

U.0.1. v. P.C. MISRA[AGRAWAL,J.] 99  

(i) Entry Grade Rs. 2000-3500 Existing  

(ii) Selection Grade  (After 8 years) Rs. 3000-4500 Existing  (20% of APS  

(iii) Junior  Rs. 3700- 5000 New Scale  

Administrative  

Grade (After 12 years)  (With at least 4 years introduced  in Selection Grade)  

(20% of APS -Subject  to identification of  posts)  

In the said memorandum, it was stated that necessary amendments  in the Rules are being carried out. The said amendments were introduced  

A  

B  

c  

by Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service (Amendment) D  Rules, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Amendment', notified vide  notification dated November 22, 1988. Some of the amendments introduced  in the Rules by the 1988 Amendment were :-

(1) Sub-rule (2) of rule 3 was substituted by the following provision:  

"(2) The Service shall have the following three grades, namely :-

(i) Junior Administrative Grade;  

(ii) Grade I (Selection Grade); and  

(iii) Grade II."  

(2) Rule 18 was substituted by the following provision :  

E  

F  

"18. All appointments to the Service shall be mad~ to the Junior  Administrative Grade, Grade I or Grade II of the service and not  against any specific posts included in the service." G  

(3) Rule 30 was substituted as under :  

"30. The scales of pay attached to the service shall be as follows :  

(i) Junior Administrative Grade H

100  

A  

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

Rs. 3700-125-4700-150-5000;  

(ii) Grade I (Selection Grade)  Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-4500;  

(iii) Grade II  B Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500."  

c  

D  

E  

F  

G  

H  

( 4) In Rule 31 relating to appointments to Junior Administrative Grade  and to Selection Grade sub-Rules (2) and (3) were introduced as under :  

"(2) An officer with a minimum of five years of regular service in  Grade I shall be eligible for being considered for promotion to  Junior Administrative Grade.  

NOTE : However, for vacancies occurring upto 31.12.1991, an  officer with at least four years regular service in Grade I shall also  be eligible for being considered for appointment to Junior Ad- ministrative Grade provided he has got a minimum 12 years of  combined regular service in Grade I and Grade II. Provided that  any service rendered in Grade II which was taken into account for  promotion grade I by a duly constituted D.P.C. will be deemed to  be regular service for the purpose of reckioning qualifying years  of service :  

Provided further that service rendered in an equivalent post in a  State Civil Service or in Grade II of the Delhi and Himachal  Pradesh Civil Service or Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman  and Nicobar Islands Civil shall count towards the 12 years period:  

Provided further that where a J~nior person is considered for such  appointment, all persons senior to him shall also be considered for  promotion to Junior Administrative Grade provided they have put  in at least four years regular service in Grade I.  

(3) The crucial date for determining the eligibility of officers for  promotion to Junior Administrative Grade shall be 31st December  of the year in which the vacancy has occurred.  

NOTE : For pormotion to the Junior Administrative Grade year- wise panel will be prepared from the year 1986, i.e., w.e.f. the year

U.0.1. v. P.C.MISRA(AGRAWAL,J.] 101  

in which the Junior Administrative Grade has been created and A  the crucial date will be 31st December of the year to which the  panel pertains."  

Schedule I to the Rules was revised and under Delhi Administration  29 posts were specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade. By B  notification dated April 7, 1989, the Rules were further amended by Delhi  and Andamans & Nicobar Civil Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989 and  Schedule I was substituted and as a result the number of posts specified  as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade was raised to 40.  

P.C. Misra, the respondent in appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. C  14261-62/92, joined the Service in 1974. He was promoted to Selection  Grade of the Service with effect from July 16, 1984. He was appointed to  the post of Joint Director (Agriculture and Marketing), with effect from  February 4, 1988. The said post is specified as falling in the Junior Ad- ministrative Grade in Schedule I to the Rules as substituted by the 1988 D  Amendment. He was considered for appointment to the Junior Ad- ministrative Grade but he was not selected and his juniors were appointed  to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from July 17, 1989. Feeling  aggrieved by his non-selection for the Junior Administrative Grade, he filed  O.A. No. 1006/89 and OA. No. 1140/89 before the Tribunal. The said  application have been allowed by the Tribunal by order dated March 4, E  1992. The Tribunal has held that the said respondent should be deemed to  have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with  effect from January 1, 1986.  

M.N. Mathur, the respondent in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. F  14402/92, joined the Service in 1970. He was promoted to Selection Grade  by order dated November 12, 1984 with effect from October 3, 1983. In  November, 1986, he was appointed to the post of Joint Director (Educa- tion) and in July, 1987 he was posted as Assistant Commissioner (Sales  Tax) and in September, 1988, as Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax). All the  three posts, viz., Joint Director (Education), Assistant Commissioner · G  (Sales Tax) and Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) are specified as falling  in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I to the Rules as sub- stituted by 1988 Amendment. He was considered for appointment to the  Junior Administrative Grade but was not selected and two of his juniors  were appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade on May 17, 1989. He H

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

A filed 0.A. No. 1202/89 before the Tribunal which was allowed by order  dated March 4, 1992. The Tribunal has directed that he should be deemed  to have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with  effect from January 1, 1986.  

In holding that the respondents should be deemed to have been  B regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from  

January 1, 1986, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the Selection  

Grade posts specified in the Schedule I to the Rules as falling in the Junior  Administrative Grade have been upgraded to the Junior Administrative  Grade and respondents, who were holding the posts which are specified as  

C falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I as revised by the  1988 Amendment, must be deemed to have been appointed to the  upgraded posts without requiring any fresh process of selection to be  undergone by them. The Tribunal has also held that the 1988 Amendment  providing for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade from Grade I  

D (Selection Grade) being prospective could only govern the vacancies aris- ing after the corning into force of the 1988 Amendment and further that  the vested rights and legitimate expectations of the respondents could not  be taken away by retrospective amendment of the Rules and by providing  for fresh selection to the upgraded posts in the Junior Administrative  Grade by adopting new criteria.  

E  The appellants have not challenged the finding recorded by the  

Tribunal that the 1988 Amendment has brought about upgradation of the  Selection Grade posts referred to in Schedule I as falling in the Junior  Administrative Grade. We will, therefore, proceed on the assumption that  

F the posts specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in  Schedule I to the Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment, have been  upgraded from Selection Grade to Junior Administrative Grade. The said  upgradation, according to the respondents and as found by the Tribunal,  was with effect from January 1, 1986. In order that respondents could be  held to be entitled to be appointed to the upgraded post in the Junior  

G Administrative Grade, it was necessary that (i) they should have been  holding that post on the date of upgradation, i.e., January 1, 1986; and (ii)  they werL eligible for appointment to the said post on January 1, 1986,,the  day of upgradation. We find that both these conditions are not satisfied by  the respondents. On January 1, 1986, both of them were not holding a post  

H specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I to the

U.0.1. v. P.C. MISRA[AGRAWAL,J.j 103  

Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment. They came to hold such a A  post after January 1, 1986. P.C. Misra came to hold such post i.e. Joint  Director (Agriculture and Marketing) on February 4, 1988 while M.N.  Mathur came to hold such post i.e. Joint Director (Education) in Novem·  

ber, 1986.  

As regards eligibility for appointment to the Junior Administrative  Grade it may be stated that the memorandum dated November 26, 1987  whereby the Junior Administrative Grade was introduced with effect from  January 1, 1986, prescribed that in order that a person could be appointed  to the Junior Administrative Grade he should have 12 years service with  

B  

at least four years in Selection Grade. The same requirement is prescribed C  in the Note appended below sub-rule (2) of Rule 31, inserted by the 1988  Amendment, which provides that for vacancies occurring upto December  31, 1991, an officer with at least four years regular service in Grade I shall  also be eligible for being considered for appointment to the Junior Ad- ministrative Grade provided he has got a minimum 12 years of combined  regular service in Grade I and Grade II. This will show that both under D  memorandum dated November 26, 1987 and the Rules as amended by the  1988 Amendment, in order to be eligible for appointment to the Junior  Administrative Grade it was necessary for an officer to have 12 years  service and at least four years service in Grade I. Reference, in this context,  may also be made to the Note appended below sub-rule (3) of Rule 31  inserted by the 1988 Amendment. In sub-rule (3) it is provided that the E  crucial date for determining the eligibility of officers for promotion to  Junior Administrative Grade shall be 31st December of the year in which  the vacancy has occurred. In the Note appended below sub-rule (3), it is  provided that for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade yearwise  panel will be prepared from the year 1986, i.e., with effect from the year  in which the Junior Administrative Grade has been created and the crucial  date will be 31st December of the yeai to which the panel pertains. The  memorandum dated November 26, 1987 has to be read along with snb-rule  

F  

(3) of Rule 31 and if thus read it would cover cases of officers who were  eligible on January 1, 1986, the date of introduction of the Junior Ad- ministrative Grade. In other words officers who fulfilled the conditions of G  eligibility contained in the said memorandum on December 31, 1985 were  to be appointed on the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from  January 1, 1986 on the basis ofihe said memorandum and the officers who  acquired the eligibility for such appointment after December 31, 1985  would be governed by the Rules in view of the note appended below  

H

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

A sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and they could be appointed to the Junior Ad- ministrative Grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31. Neither  of the respondents fulfilled the criterion for eligibilty mentioned in the  memorandum because both of them did not have four years service in  Selection Grade on January 1, 1986. They came to satisfy the said require- ment of eligibility only after January 1, 1986. Since they could not satisfy  

B the conditions of eligibility upto January 1, 1986, they could not be deemed  to have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with  effect from January 1, 1986, the date when the Junior Administrative Grade  was introduced ar.d the Selection Grade post specified as falling in the  Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I are said to have been ungraded  

C to the Junior Administrative Grade. They could be appointed to the Junior  Administrative Grade only by way of promotion in accordance with the  Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment. Their cases were duly con- sidered for such promotion but they were not found suitable for appoint - ment and were not selected. The respondents have not been able to show  any infirmity in the said selection. Under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 31 appoint-

D ment of members of the Service to the Junior Administrative Grade is  required to be made by promotion on selection basis. Since the respon- dents were not found suitable for appointment to the Junior Administrative  Grade they cannot claim appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade  on the basis that officers junior to them have been appointed to the Junior  Administrative Grade.  

E  We are unable to appreciate the view of the Tribunal that the 1988  

Amendment could only govern vacancies arising after the coming into force  of the 1988 Amendment and that the vested rights and legitimate expecta- tions could not be taken away by restrospective amendment of the Rules.  Since the Junior Administrative Grade was introduced for the first time  

F with effect from January 1, 1986 the rule making authority was competent  to make provision for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade  after it was introduced. Amendments intorduced in rule 31 by the 1988  Amendment make provision for such appointments and we do not find any  legal infirmity in the said provision.  

G  In the result, the appeals are allowed, the orders dated March 4, 1992  

passed by the Tribunal in 0.A. Nos. 1006/89, 1140/89 and 1202/89 are set  aside and the said applications are dismissed. No orders as to costs.  

G.N. Appeal allowed.  

(