Back
1997(3) Supreme 630
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Mrs. P.K. Sandhu -Petitioner
versus
Shiv Raj V. Patil etc. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 785 of 1995
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 69 of 1997
Decided on 25-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das Nikhilesh Ramachandran, Srilok N. Rath, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Manoj Wad, Ashish Wad, Abraham N.A., Mrs, J.S. Wad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Mrs. Kiran Suri, Advocates.
Held that the rule indicates that in service candidates would be eligible to be considered for promotion to the extent of 75% of the posts in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in column 3 thereof. In that event, if the officers were not found eligible to be promoted, instead of keeping the post vacant and the work suffered, options have been kept given to the Speaker to take the service of other officers on deputation. Therefore, the officers on deputation would remain on deputation without any incursion into the 75% quota reserved for the promoted officers. As and when the promotee officers are found to be fit for promotion, considered and promoted, the deputation officers necessarily would give place to the officers promoted within the 75% quota. 75% quota for inservice officers encourages the officers and inculcates spirit of competence, character and integrity. Otherwise, the in service officer would lose his chances of promotions to higher echelons of service. Equally, induction of officers of competence and ability on deputation of 25% quota will be an opportunity to accelerate competence and efficiency apart from improving excellence. Therefore, the respective quota is fair and in the best interest of the service. It cannot be characterised as arbitrary. (Para 5)
Further held that in 1955 Rules, which were framed by the Speaker in consultation with the President by exercising the power under clause (3) of Article 98 of the Constitution of India, Rule 4 contemplates the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled. Since the 1962 Orders are only out come of exercise of the said power, which was further modified by amendment in the Order dated December 1, 1974, the power of modification of the original order was still available to the Speaker and, therefore, the deputation of respondents Nos. 5 to 10 was not without any authority of law or in excess of authority. Therefore, they are not void ab initio for issue a Writ of Quo Warranto. (Para 7)
Further held : It is settled legal position that an in-service officer, if taken on contract basis during the period of service, renders service on contract basis and on expiry thereof he gets to his substantive post in the parent Department from where he came to be in the services of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. It the interregnum, he cannot be compelled to lose his lien on the substantive post in the parent Department. Even if the services of an incumbent on superannuation is required in the public interest, the same can be availed on contract basis. Equally, if any other competent officer who on attaining superannuation from any other service was required to be taken in due to a exigency of the service, it may be open to the Speak (Speaker sic) to avail of services of such an experienced officer on contract basis for a specified period. Thus in either event the option available to the Speaker to avail of the services of an experience officer as Secretary General, cannot be assailed as invalid or arbitrary. (Para 7)
Consequently held that when promotion is sought to be made with a view to ensure competence and efficiency in service, obviously, the Speaker had in view the length of service as one to the conditions for promotion. Under these circumstances, prescription of length of service for promotion is not an arbitrary exercise of power violating Article 14. (Para 8)
ORDER
Writ Petition No. 785/95 has been filed by Mrs. P.K. Sandhu, one of the in service officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, seeking issue of a writ of Quo Warranto against respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to show their functioning in their respective capacities, viz., Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as Additional Secretaries, Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 as Joint Secretaries and Respondent No. 10 as Secretary to the Speaker, Lok Sabha. After perusal of the relevant Rules, this Court after hearing the counsel at length passed the following order on August 2, 1996 :
"The petitioners, inservice officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, are questioning in this writ petition the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 9, to Addl. Secretaries and three Joint Secretaries, on deputation. Article 98 of the Constitution provides for Secretariat to each House of Parliament and the secretarial staff to assist the Hon ble Speaker and Hon ble the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha respectively. Under its proviso, common posts in both Houses of Parliament is permissible. By operation of Article 98(2) the Parliament may by law, regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of either House of parliament. Until the provision is made in this behalf by the parliament, clause (3) of the Article provides that the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of the House of the People or the Council of States, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made under the said clause.
In exercise of the said power under clause (3) of Article 98 the President of India after consultation with the Speaker framed rules called the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. Rule 4 provides the method of recruitment. Sub-rule (1) clause (a) provides method by promotion of any person employed in the Secretariat; clause (b) by permanent transfer or deputation of a person serving outside the Secretariat in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State; (c) by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 empowers the Speaker by order to specify the method or methods by which post or class of posts may be filled, determine the proportion of vacancies to be filled by such method and in case of recruitment by promotion, specify the class of officers who, and the conditions subject to which they, shall be eligible for such promotion from time to time. Rule 5 prescribes the qualifications for recruitment with which we are not presently concerned.
It would appear that though from time to time the Rules came to be amended with regard to the recruitment and appointment of various officers, as regards the appointment to the posts of Secretary and Joint Secretaries initially they remained appointment by promotion 100% and no amendment in that behalf came to be made. It would appear that due to increase in the work in the Lok Sabha Secretariat the Speaker convened the meeting of the opposition leader and Floor leaders of all the political parties. Thrice, the leaders had met and they have decided certain procedure to be adopted in recruitment to the posts of various categories. For the posts of Secretaries which include Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries, suggestions came to be made for appointment by promotion, so long as the inservice candidates are available and merit and ability alone should be taken into consideration in giving promotions. Where inservice candidates are not available for promotion, candidates servicing outside the Secretariat would be taken on deputation. Pursuant to that recommendation of the Committee, the Secretary General has called for the prevailing procedure in other departments. At that stage, pending decisions, respondent Nos. 5 to 10
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
