1. Dispute over seniority and year of allotment for IPS officers involving promotion to senior scale and officiation in cadre posts under IPS Rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 541
1996(3) Supreme 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
Navneet Rajan Wasan -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4226-27 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17797-98 or 1993)
Decided on 12.3.1996
The Court held that a tribunal cannot base its decision on legally inadmissible documents, such as informal instructions from a client to a lawyer, and must consider all relevant legal arguments and rules before determining seniority and the year of allotment for service officers.
Headnote:Service Law-Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954-Rule 9-Appointment to Indian Police Service-Allotment to Andhra Pradesh Cadre-Delayed promotion-Challenged-Tribunal directed Government of India to consider appellant for promotion-Implementation of direction affecting seniority of respondents 4, 5 and 6-Gradation list amended-Order challenged by respondents-Their application allowed-Pleas raised by appellant not considered-Tribunal based its finding on a document not legally admissible nor properly brought on record-Impugned order set aside-Matter remanded to Tribunal for proper disposal.
Held : That his contest to the claim of the three applicants-respondents was principally based on Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rule, 1954. In spite thereof, surprisingly however, the Tribunal did not even advert to the contentions raised by the appellant, much less meet the same. (Para 8)
As regards the other contention of the appellant that those three respondents did not officiate in cadre posts after inclusion in the Select List - which was also supported by the respondent No. 1 - it has already been noticed (in the earlier quoted passage) that the Tribunal negatived the same relying solely upon a memo dated June 26, 1993 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Government. As on persual of the records we did not find any such memo, we enquired of the learned counsel for the three applicants-respondents about its issuance/existence. The learned counsel handed over a copy thereof to us and on perusal of the same, we were surprised to find that it was only a communication addressed to the special counsel who appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh before the Tribunal. In other words, it was not a formal order which was issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and filed before the Tribunal supported by a proper affidavit, but was only the written instructions given by a client to his lawyer. We are, therefore, constrained to say that the Tribunal was not at all justified in entertaining the same, far less, basing its decision thereupon. This apart, the communication, for what it is worth, does not support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the three concerned respondents officiated in "senior cadre post" for it only says that they officiated in senior post . (Para 9)
Further held : We must hold that the Tribunal did not approach the questions raised before it from a proper perspective nor did it take into consideration the plea raised by the appellant; and, on the contrary based its finding on a document which was not legally admissible nor properly brought on record. (Para 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether seniority should be based on date of substantive appointment or date of continuous officiation in cadre posts under IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The Tribunal failed to consider material rules regarding cadre posts and relied on an inadmissible communication rather than a formal order or affidavit. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. A tribunal cannot base its findings on inadmissible documents, such as informal lawyer instructions, nor ignore material legal contentions raised by a party. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Impugned orders set aside and applications remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (Para 10 )
6. Can a tribunal rely on informal communications between a client and a lawyer as evidence?
No. The court held that a communication addressed to a special counsel, which is not a formal order issued by the government and not supported by a proper affidavit, is not legally admissible and cannot be the basis for a decision. (Para 9 )
7. What is the effect of a tribunal failing to consider a material legal plea raised by a party?
If a tribunal fails to advert to or meet a genuine and well-founded contention based on relevant rules, it is considered to have failed to approach the question from a proper perspective, warranting a remand. (Para 8 , 10 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These two appeals have been heard together as they arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Central Administration Tribunal, Hyderabad ( Tribunal for short) disposing of two original applications (O.A. Nos. 823 of 1992 and 919 of 1992). Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are as under.
3. Shri N.R. Wasan, the appellant herein, was appointed to the Indian Police Service (IPS) on September 20, 1980 on the basis of Civil Service Examination, 1979 and was allotted to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre. Inspite of his completion of 4 years of service on September 19, 1984, he was however not promoted to the senior scale on the ground that he had not passed the language test. Aggrieved by his delayed promotion he filed an application before the Tribunal vide O.A. No. 414 of 1989 seeking redressal of his grievances. His application was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated January 13, 1988 with a direction to the Government of India to consider him for promotion to the senior scale on completion of 4 years of service in the junior scale subject to the conditions prescribed in the Rules, without insisting on passing of the language test. Assailing the above order of the Tribunal the State of Andhra Pradesh filed a special leave petition in this Court which was dismissed on February 18, 1991. Thereafter the Government of India decided to implement the direction of the Tribunal but as its implementation was to affect the seniority of nine promotee officers including the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 herein, (R4, R5 and R6 for short), in that, their year of allotment was to be changed from 1979 to 1980 they were asked to show cause against the proposed revision of the Gradation List. After considering the representations submitted by those officers the Government of India issued, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, an Order on June 18, 1992 whereby it allowed senior time scale to the appellant with effect from September 20, 1984 and amended the Gradation List of IPS officer of Andhra Pradesh so as to place him above those three respondents.
4. Assailing the above Order R4 and R5 filed a separate (O.A. No. 823 of 1992) and R6 filed is separate application (O.A. No. 919 of 1992) before the Tribunal. In their applications they averred that all of them were included in the Select List of 1983 prepared in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 and that after such inclusion they were promoted to officials in senior time scales of IPS Officers with effect from February 23, 1984, February 29, 1984 and March 6, 1984 respectively till they were appointed in substantive vacancies in the post of IPS Officers in the month of October, 1984. Resultantly, they contended, in view of Rule 3 (3)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, (as it stood at the relevant time) their seniority was to be reckoned with reference to the dates from which they officiated in the senior posts and not the dates of their actual absorption in the substantive vacancies of IPS Officers. When so reckoned, their year of allotment would be 1979 as originally assigned, and hence the Gradation List did not warrant modification notwithstanding the appellant s appointment in the senior post with effect from September 20, 1984.
5. In contesting the applications the appellant submitted that under Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 a cadre post in a State may be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer only if the State Government or its delegatee is satisfied that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months or that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. According to the appellant the concerned authorities could not have obtained satisfaction that no suitable cadre officer was available f
