http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL SHAH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/10/1996

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER,1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati K.N.Shukla, Sr.Adv.,  Hemant Sharma  and  S.N.Terdel,  Advs. with him for the appellants H.S.Parihar Kuldeep S.Parihar, Advs. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Union of India & Ors. V. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J.      The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is  whether it  is permissible to club vacancies of a number  of   years  while  preparing  the  select  list  for promotion to  the Indian  Administrative Service  (for short ’Service’) from  the State  Civil Service.  By the  impugned judgment dated  November 30, 1993 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad  Bench  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) has  held that  such clubbing of vacancies is not permissible  and   that  separate  select  lists  should  be prepared by the Selection Committee for each year.      The Indian  Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 make  provision  for  appointment  to  the  Service  by promotion from  amongst the  substantive members  of a State Civil Service  [Rules 4(1)  (b) and 8(1)]. Such promotion to the Service  from the State Civil Service is governed by the Indian Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulation,  1955   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ’the Regulations’) Regulation  3 makes provision for constitution of  a   Committee  to   make  the  selection.  Regulation  5 prescribes the  procedure for  making the  selection by  the Committee and  the preparation  of a  list.  The  said  list prepared by the Committee in accordance with Regulation 5 is required to  be forwarded  by the  State Government  to  the Union Public  Service Commission [Regulation 6] and the list as approved by the Union Public Service Commission forms the select list  for purpose  of promotion of the members of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

State Civil  Service [Regulation  7].  Appointments  to  the Service  are   made  by   the  Central   Government  on  the recommendation of  the State Government from the said Select List [Regulation 9].      The  respondent   was   a   member   of   the   Gujarat Administrative Service Class I, having been recruited to the said service  Class I,  having been  recruited to  the  said service in  the year  1967. The select list for promotion to the Service from the State Civil Service was prepared by the Selection Committee under the Regulations in July 1979. Even though  respondent   had  put  in  the  requisite  8  years’ continuous service  in the State Civil Service in July 1979, he was  not considered by the Selection Committee because he fell outside the zone of consideration. Thereafter no select list was  prepared for  promotion  of  State  Civil  Service officers in  Gujarat till  December 1986/January  1987.  The respondent was  not selected in the said selection. He filed a petition  (O.A. NO.  646  OF  1988)  before  the  Tribunal wherein  he   assailed  the  select  list  prepared  by  the Selection Committee  in December  1986/January 1987  on  the ground that  it was  not permissible  to club  together  the vacancies of  the years  1980 to  1986 for  the  purpose  of making selection  under Regulation  5 of the Regulations and that Selection  Committee should  have  met  every  year  to prepare a  select list  for the  vacancies of each year. The said  application  submitted  by  the  respondent  has  been allowed by  the  Tribunal  by  the  impugned  judgment.  The Tribunal has  held that  the action  of  the  appellants  in clubbing the  vacancies and  thereby enlarging  the zone  of consideration could  have  prejudiced  the  respondent  and, therefore, it  was illegal.  The Tribunal  has directed  the appellant to prepare select list from year to year from 1980 to 1986  and thereafter  on the basis of vacancies from year to year  without clubbing  the vacancies  in any  particular year and as the part of the exercise to consider the case of the respondent  for promotion  to the Service and should has name figure  in the  select list  and, should  the vacancies permit, to  appoint him  to the  Service and to give him all consequential benefits on the basis of such appointment from the date  of the  appointment. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of  the Tribunal,  the  appellant  has  filed  this appeal.      The relevant  provisions contained  in Regulation 5, as in force in 1980, were as under:-      "Regulation 5.      (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily      meet at intervals not exceeding one      year and  prepare a  list  of  such      members of  the State Civil Service      as are  held by them to be suitable      for promotion  to the  Service. The      number  of  members  of  the  State      Civil Service, included in the list      shall not  be more  than twice  the      number  of   substantial  vacancies      anticipated in  the course  of  the      period of twelve months, commencing      from the date of preparation of the      list, in  the posts  available  for      them   under    Rule   9   of   the      Recruitment Rules, or 10 percent of      the  Senior   posts  shown  against      items 1 and 2 of the cadre schedule      of each  State of  group of States,      whichever is greater.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    (2) The  Committee  shall  consider      for inclusion in the said list, the      cases of members of the State Civil      Services  in   the   order   of   a      seniority  in  that  Service  or  a      member which is equal to five times      the   number   referred   in   sub-      regulation (1).           Provided that such restriction      shall not  apply in  respect  of  a      State where  the  total  number  of      eligible officers  is less than fie      times the  maximum permissible size      of the  Select List  and in  such a      case the  Committee shall  consider      all the eligible officers.           Provided   further   that   in      computing the  number of  inclusion      in the  field of consideration, the      number of  officers referred  to in      subregulation    (3)    shall    be      excluded.           Provided   also    that    the      Committee shall  not  consider  the      case of  a member  of a State Civil      Service unless, on the first day of      January, of  the year  in which  it      means  he  is  substantial  in  the      State   Civil   Service   and   has      completed not less than eight years      of  continuous   service   (whether      officiating or  substantive) in the      post of  Deputy Collector or in any      other  post   or   posts   declared      equivalent  thereto  by  the  State      Government.           Provided also  that in respect      of    any     released    Emergency      Commissioned   or   short   service      Commissioned Officers  appointed to      the  State   Civil  Service,  eight      years  of   continuous  service  as      required   under    the   preceding      proviso shall  be counted  from the      deemed date of their appointment to      that  service,   subject   to   the      condition that  such officers shall      be eligible  for  consideration  if      they have  completed not  less than      four  years  of  actual  continuous      service, on  the first  day of  the      January of  the year  in which  the      committee meets,  in  the  post  of      Deputy Collector  or in  any  other      post or  posts declared  equivalent      thereto by the State Government.      Explanation--The  powers   of   the      State Government  under  the  third      proviso  to   this   sub-regulation      shall be  exercised in  relation to      the  members  of  the  State  Civil      Service of  a constituent State, by      the Government of that State.      (2A)        X          X          X      (3)   The   Committee   shall   not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    consider the  cases of  the members      of the  State  Civil  Service,  who      have attained  the age  of 52 years      on the  first day of January of the      year in which it meets.           Provided that  a member of the      State  Civil  Service,  whose  name      appears in the Select List in force      immediately before  the date of the      meeting of  the Committee, shall be      considered  for  inclusion  in  the      fresh list,  to be  prepared by the      Committee, even  if he  has in  the      meanwhile attained  the age  of  52      years.           Provided further that a member      of the  State Civil Service who has      attained the age of 54 years on the      first day of January of the year in      which the  Committee meet  shall be      considered by  the Committee, if he      was eligible  for consideration  on      the first  day of  January  of  the      year  or   of  any   of  the  years      immediately preceding  the year  in      which  such  meeting  is  held  but      could  not   be  considered  as  no      meeting of  the Committee  was hold      during  such   preceding  year   or      years.      (4)        X          X           X      (5)        X          X           X      (6) The  list so  prepared shall be      reviewed and revised every year.      (7)        X          X           X      During the  period 1980 to 1986 several amendments were made in  the Regulations.  In clause  (1) for  the words "10 percent" the  words "5  percent" were substituted. In clause (2) instead  of the  words "five  times"  the  words  "three times" were  substituted. In clause (3) the words "52 years" were substituted  by the  words "54  years", and  the second proviso was inserted.      A  perusal  of  Regulation  5  shows  that  clause  (1) required that  the Selection Committee shall ordinarily meet at intervals  not exceeding  one year  and prepare a list of such members  of the State Civil Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The said clause also required  that the  number of  the members of the State Civil Service  included in  the list  shall not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of  the period  of twelve  months commencing from the date of  preparation of  the list.   Under  clause  (2)  the Selection Committee  was required  to consider  the cases of members of  State Civil  Service in the order of a seniority in that  service of  a number  which was equal to five times (subsequently reduced to three times) the number referred in clause (1).  Under the  third proviso  to clause  (2) it was prescribed that  the Selection  Committee shall  no consider the case  of member of the State Civil Service unless on the first day  of January  of the  year in which it meets his is substantive in  State Civil  Service and  has completed  not less  than   eight  years  of  continuous  service  (whether officiating substantive)  in the post of Deputy Collector or in other  post or  posts declared  equivalent thereto by the State  Government.   In  respect   of   released   Emergency

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Commissioned  or   short   service   Commissioned   officers appointed  to   the  State   Civil  Service  the  period  of continuous service  was four  years under the fourth proviso to clause (2). In view of clause (3) cases of members of the State Civil  Service who  had attained  the age  of 52 years (subsequently raised  to 54  years )  on the  first  day  of January of  the year  in which the Selection Committee meets were not to be considered by the Committee. Under clause (6) the list prepared by the Selection Committee was required to be reviewed and revised every year.      If clause  (1) is  read with  the other  provisions  in Regulation 5  referred to  above the inference is inevitable that the  requirement in clause (1) of Regulation 5 that the Selection Committee  shall meet  at intervals  not exceeding one year  and prepare  a list  of members of the State Civil Service who  are suitable  for promotion  in the Service was intended to  be mandatory  in nature because the eligibility of the persons to be considered both in the matter of length of service  and are  under  clauses  (2)  and  (3)  is  with reference to  the first date of January of the year in which the Selection  Committee meets  and the number of members of the State  Civil Service  to be  considered for selection is also  linked   with  the  number  of  substantive  vacancies anticipated in  the course  of the  period of  twelve months commencing from the date of preparation of the list. We are, therefore of  the view  that the  requirement prescribed in sub-regulation (1)  of Regulation 5 regarding the Committees writing at  intervals not exceeding one year and preparing a list of  such members  of the  State Civil  Service who  are suitable for  promotion to  the  Services  was  a  mandatory requirement which  had to be followed. The earlier decisions of this Court also lend support to this view.      In Union  of India  v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,1974 (1) SCR 797,  this Court  was construing  Regulations 4 and 5 of the  Indian  Administrative  Service/Indian  Police  Service (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations, 1955, as they stood at that  time. The  provisions  in  those  regulations  were similar to  those contained  in  Regulation  5  referred  to above. In  Regulation 4 (1) there was a requirement that the Committee shall meet at intervals not exceeding one year and consider the  cases of  all substantive members of the State Civil/Police Service who on the first day of January of the year had   completed not less than eight years of continuous service. Under  Regulation 4(2)  it was  prescribed that the Committee shall  not consider  the case  of members  of  the State Civil/Police  Service who  had attained  the age of 52 years on  the first  day of the January of the year in which the meeting  of  the  Committee  is  held.  Regulation  5(4) prescribed that  the list  so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. Mathew   in his concurring judgment, has said  :-      "The purpose  of an annual revision      or revision or review is to make an      assessment   of   the   merit   and      suitability   of   all   the   then      eligible  candidates   and  make  a      fresh list  of the  required number      of  the  most  suitable  candidates      from among  them. In  other  words,      the purpose of the annual review or      revision of  the select  list is to      prepare  a   list  and  to  include      therein the  required number of the      most suitable  persons  from  among      all the  then eligible  candidates-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    [P. 802]      "When Regulation 5(4) says that the      list prepared  in  accordance  with      Regulation 5(1)  shall be  reviewed      or revised  every year,  it  really      means  that   there  must   be   an      assessment   of   the   merit   and      suitability  of  all  the  eligible      members every  year. The  paramount      duty cast  upon the   Committee  to      draw up  a  list  under  Regulation      5(1) of  such members  of the State      Civil/Police Service as satisfy the      condition under Regulation 4 and as      are held  by the  Committee  to  be      suitable  for   promotion  to   the      service would be discharged only if      the Committee  makes the  selection      from all  the  eligible  candidates      every year."                                 [p. 802] Beg. J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, he said:-      "The required number has thus to be      selected by  a comparison of merits      of all  the eligible  candidates of      each year."                                  [p.818]      Clause (1)  of Regulation  5 of the Regulations differs from clause (1) of Regulation 4 which was considered by this Court in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in the sense that the word "ordinarily" found  in clause  (1) of  Regulation 5  was not contained in clause (1) of Regulation 5 was not contained in clause (1)  of Regulation  4.  The  insertion  of  the  word "ordinarily" does  not, in our opinion, alter the intendment underlying the  provision. It  only means  that unless there are good  reasons for  not doing so, the Selection Committee shall meet every year for making the selection.      In Syed  Khalid Rizvi  & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1993 Supp.  (3) SCC  575, this  Court was  constructing  the provisions of  Regulation 5  of the  Indian  Police  Service (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations,  1995 which  is  in pari material  with clause (1) of Regulation 5 and contained the word "ordinarily", It was observed :-      "......since the preparation of the      select list  is the  foundation for      promotion and its omission impinges      upon the  legitimate expectation of      promotee officers for consideration      of their claim for promotion as IPS      officers, the  preparation  of  the      select-list must  be constructed to      be mandatory. The Committee should,      therefore,  meet   every  year  and      prepare  the   select-list  and  be      reviewed and  revised from  time to      time as exigencies demand."                                 [p. 586]      "Unless  the  select-list  is  made      annually and  reviewed and  revised      from time  to  time,  the  promotee      officers would  stand to lose their      chances   of    consideration   for      promotion   which    would   be   a      legitimate expectation.  This Court      in Mohan  Lal Capoor case held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    the Committee  shall prepare  every      year the  select-list and  the list      must be  submitted to  the UPSC  by      the State  Government for  approval      and thereafter appointment shall be      made in  accordance with the rules.      We have,  therefore, no  hesitation      to hold  that  preparation  of  the      select-list    every     year    is      mandatory. It  would  subserve  the      object of the Act and the rules and      afford an higher opportunity to the      promotee officers  to reach  higher      echelons of the service."                                 [p. 605]      It must, therefore, held that in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 5, unless there is a good reason for not doing  so, the  Selection Committee  is required to meet every year  for the  purpose of  making the  selection  from amongst  State   Civil  Service  officers  who  fulfill  the conditions regarding  eligibility on  the first  day of  the January of  the year  in which  the Committee meets and fall within the zone of consideration as prescribed in clause (2) of Regulation  5. The  failure on  the part of the Selection Committee  to  meet  during  a  particular  year  would  not dispense with  the requirement  of preparing the Select List for that  year. If  for any  reason the  Selection Committee when it  meets next,  should, while  making  the  selection, prepare a  separate list  for each  year keeping in view the number of vacancies in that year after considering the State Civil Service officers who were eligible and fall within the zone of consideration for selection in that year.      In the  present case,  the Selection  Committee did not meet during  the years  1980 to  1985 and it met in December 1986/January  1987   and  a  Consolidated  Select  List  was prepared for  the vacancies of the years 1980 to 1986. There was thus  a failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Regulation  5 of  the Regulations.  In Syed  Khalid Rizvi (supra) select  lists had  not been  prepared for  the years 1971, 1975,  1976, 1979 and 1980. During the pendency of the appeal in  this Court  the State  Government was directed to prepare the select list on national basis for the said years and select  lists were  then prepared.  In the instant case, State Civil Service officers who were selected in the select list prepared  in December  1986/January 1987  have not been impleaded as  parties and,  therefore, their  appointment to the Service  cannot be  upset. In his application before the Tribunal the respondent sought a direction for consideration of his  case afresh  for the  purpose of  inclusion  in  the select list. The respondent can seek such consideration only in a  way that  it does not disturb the appointment of other State Civil  Service officers who have been appointed to the Service  on  the  basis  of  the  Select  List  of  December 1986/January 1987. For that purpose out of the said officers whose appointment  is not  to be  disturbed those  who  were senior to  the respondent  in the  State Civil  Service will have to  be adjusted  against the  vacancies for  the  years 1980-1986. If,  as a result of such adjustment the vacancies of a  particular year/years  are completely  filled, then no further action  is to  be taken  in respect of the vacancies for that/those  year/years. If  after  such  adjustment  the vacancies of  a particular  year/years  are  not  completely filled, steps  will have  to be  taken to  prepare  notional Select  List/Lists   for   the   vacancies   of   that/these year//years separately  from  amongst  State  Civil  Service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

officers who  are eligible  and  fall  within  the  zone  of consideration for  selection in  respect of the vacancies of the particular  year. If  the  name  of  the  respondent  is included in  the notional  Select List/Lists  so prepared or any particular year/years during the period 1980 to 1986 and is places  in the order of merit so as to have been entitled to be  appointed against  a vacancy of that particular year, he can  justifiably claim  to be  appointed to  the  Service against that  vacancy of  that year. But that appointment of other State  Civil Service  officers, through  junior to the respondent, made on the basis of the Select List of December 1986/January  1987   and  the   vacancy  against  which  the appointment of  the respondent would be made will have to be adjusted  the   subsequent  vacancies   falling  within  the promotion quota prescribed for State Civil Service officers.      Therefore,  while   upholding  the   judgement  of  the Tribunal that  the respondent  is  entitled  to  seek  fresh consideration on the basis that the selection should be made for vacancies  occurring in  each year  separately,  but  in substitution of  the directions given by the Tribunal in the regard, the following directions are given :-      (1)  The number  of  vacancies  falling  in  the  quota      prescribed  for   promotion  of   State  Civil  Service      officers to  the Service shall be determined separately      for each  year in  respect of  the period  from 1980 to      1986.      (2)  The State  Civil Service  officers who  have  been      appointed to  the Service  on the basis of the impugned      Select List  of December  1986/January  1987  and  were      senior to  the respondent  in the  State Civil  Service      shall be  adjusted against  the vacancies so determined      on year wise basis.      (3)  After such  adjustment if  all the  vacancies in a      particular year  or years  are filled  by the  officers      referred to in paragraph (2), no further action need be      taken in  respect  of  those  vacancies  for  the  said      year/years.      (4)  But, if  after such  adjustment  vacancy/vacancies      remain in  a particular  year/years during  the  period      from 1980  to 1986, notional Select List/Lists shall be      prepared  separately   for   that   year/years   on   a      consideration of  all eligible  officers falling within      the zone  of consideration  determined on  the basis of      the vacancies of the particular year.      (5)  If the  name of  the respondent is included in the      notional Select  List/Lists prepared for any particular      year/years during  the period 1980 to 1986 and if he is      so placed  in the  order of  merit so  as to  have been      entitled to  be appointed  against a  vacancy  of  that      particular year, he be appointed to the Service against      that  vacancy  of  that  year  with  all  consequential      benefits.      (6)  The vacancy  against which  the respondent  is  so      appointed would  be  adjusted  against  the  subsequent      vacancies falling in the promotion quota prescribed for      the State Civil Service officers.      (7)  Such  appointment  of  the  respondent  would  not      affect the  appointments that have already been made on      the basis  of the  impugned  Select  List  of  December      1986/January 1987. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.