Important Point
Although Notifications dated 15-12-1993 and 16-12-1993 of the Government of India amending IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) 12th Amendment Regulations, 1993 are invalid and inoperative and have rightly been struck down by Central Administrative Tribunal yet Supreme Court issued appropriate directions to do complete justice between the parties.

Headnote:(i) Notification dated 15-12-1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel-Notification amending I.A.S. (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations - Whether can be held to be a Rule though nomenclatured as Regulation amending the Cadre Strength Regulation? (No). (Para 7)
       Held : On a plain grammatical meaning of the words used in the notification being given as well as the object for which the notification has been issued if borne in mind the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the said notification is a regulation amending the Cadre Strength Regulation and called the 12th Amendment Regulation, 1993. (Para 7)
       (ii) Notification dated 15-12-1993 and Rule 9 of the I.A.S. (Recruitment) Rules, 1954-Whether it is possible to construe the notification and the Rule harmoniously? (No)-Effect-The notification contravenes the Rule and was rightly struck down by Tribunal. (Para 8)
       Held : Having considered the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, the Cadre Rules and the Cadre Strength Regulation we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned notification dated 15 December, 1993 contravenes Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules and under the scheme of the Act, Rules and Regulations it is not possible to sustain the notification in question by giving any harmonious construction to the provisions. The Tribunal, therefore, was fully justified in striking down the notification dated 15 of December, 1993. (Para 8)
       (iii) Two Notifications dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993 of Government of India-Amending IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations-Validity challenged as contravening Rule 9 of I.A.S. (Recruitment) Rules, 1954-Can the statutory authority framing the Rules and Regulations take the shelter that it was in implementation of certain directions of the Tribunal in favour of same employees?-(No)-Whether such a plea can be sustained even though the Rules and Regulations framed are found to be beyond the powers of the rule making authority or is otherwise constitutionally invalid? (No) -Effect-The notifications are invalid and are rightly struck down by the CAT. (Para 9)
       (iv) Two Notifications dated 15.12.93 and 16.12.93-Tribunal striking them down rightly-What would be the appropriate direction to do complete justice between the parties to resolve the dispute as to the year of allotment in the cadre of I.A.S. between direct recruits and promotees?
       Held : We find that as a necessary consequence of the quashing of the notification dated 16.12.1993 the appointment of the 14 officers included therein to the Indian Administrative Service with retrospective effect would stand invalidated, though as a matter of fact the said notification has been given effect to and most of the State Civil Service Officers promoted thereunder with retrospective effect might have superannuated in the meantime. In this view of the matter, the State Civil Service Officers who have been promoted to the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of the original Select List as well as the review Select List of the 1987, their appointment need not be disturbed at this length of time. But so far as their seniority and year of allotment in IAS is concerned the same has to be re-done in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, so that, the direct recruits Indian Administrative Officers’ interest will not be adversely affected. This can be achieved by treating only the first 13 officers of the Review Select List which contains the names of the total 40 officers in order of merit could be treated to be the officers promoted on the basis of 1987 Select List and their year of allotment may accordingly be determined. So far as the officers from serial No. 14 to 40 are concerned of the said review Select List of the year 1987 while they would be permitted to continue in Indian Administrative Service but such continuance will not confer on them the right to count their seniority and year of allotment but their cases will have to be adjusted in the subsequent years depending upon the number of vacancies and the posts available for such promotees, and their year of allotment would be re-determined accordingly. We would further make it clear that if any of these State Civil Service Officers who were much junior to the officers who had approached the Tribunal on earlier occasion and who had been appointed on promotion to the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of the original Select List of the year 1987 their year of allotment has to be re-determined in view of their position having been pushed down in the review Select List of the year 1987 which contains the names of all the 40 officers. We decline to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal but we issue the aforesaid directions for the purpose of re-determination of the seniority and year of allotment of these officers which we think is necessary in the interest of justice. All these appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. (Para 10)

Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-These eight appeals are directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 26.8.1994, and involve common questions of law. By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed the two Notifications dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel inter alia on the ground that the Notifications in question amending the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’) contravenes Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Recruitment Rules). The appellants in all these appeals are the promotees to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service who had been recruited by way of direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Collectors in the State Service. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 1994 are the direct recruits to the Indian Administrative Service. These respondents - direct recruit IAS officers had filed OA No. 118 of 1994, challenging the Notifications of the Government of India dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993, as already stated. Another direct recruit IAS officer had filed OA No. 542 of 1994 and yet another direct recruit IAS officer had filed OA No. 543 of 1994 and all the three OAs were disposed of together by the Tribunal by order dated 26.8.1994. Though the dispute essentially centres round the year of allotment in the cadre of Indian Administrative Service between the direct recruits and the promotees but the said dispute arises because of several earlier orders passed by the Tribunals and the two Notifications were issued by the Union Government in implementation of the directions of the Tribunal. It would, therefore, be necessary to set out facts in brief.

2. The appellants were initially recruited to the post of Deputy Collectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh and were appointed by order dated 29.12.1978 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. On getting posting orders in different places in the State one of them (Umamalleswar Rao) joined his post on the very next day as his posting was at Hyderabad itself. The other appointees joined their respective posts on different dates in January 1979 depending upon the time that was required for them to go and join the post. The State Government issued G.O. No. 493 dated 8.4.1992, indicating that the services of these officers would count from the date on which the respective higher rank holders in the merit list joined the duty in January 1979. On account of the aforesaid Government Order Umamalleswar Rao’s date of joining became 18.1.1979 though factually he had joined the duty on 13.12.1978. Under the Provisions dealing with promotion to the IAS cadre, an officer belonging to the State Civil Service must complete 8 years of service on 1st January of the year in which the Select Committee meets in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. Umamalleswar Rao who had factually joined as Deputy Collector on 13th December, 1978, but was deemed to have joined the post on 18.1.1979 because of the Government Order dated 8.4.1982 was not eligible for being considered for promotion in the year 1987 as he could not complete 8 years by 1.1.1987. He, therefore, filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was registered as R.P. No. 9173 of 1987 contending therein that his services from the date of his joining on the post of Deputy Collector 13th December, 1978 should be counted. Similar applications were also filed by some other officers which were registered as RP No. 7311 of 1987 and R.P. No. 7194 of 1987. In case of Umamalleswar Rao the Tribunal granted an interim direction that his case be placed before the Select Committee who is to prepare Select List for the year 1987. The Select Committee which met on 15.12.1987 considered the cases of 26 officers for promotion who had completed 8 years

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 258

Cases Referred (1)