2000 Supreme(SC) 2000

2000(8) Supreme 608
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
S. Ramanathan -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2560 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2561-65/99 & 2566/99
And
W.P. (C) No. 366/98
Decided 7-12-2000

IMPORTANT POINT
Inaction on the part of the Competent Authority to have triennial review in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules would entitle an aggrieved officer to have mandamus from the Court to have a review, in accordance with law and the consequential directions for reconsideration of the appellants for promotion to the post of Indian Police Service from an anterior date.

Headnote:Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955-Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954-Rule 4 (as it stood prior to 10.3.1995)-Strength of cadres-Re-determination of strength and composition of cadre every three years obligatory-Process of determining cadre strength initiated in 1989-It was finalised in 1991-Government must reconsider question of promotion of State Cadre Officers to Indian Police Service on basis of re-determined strength of cadre, treating same to be in year 1989-Inaction on part of Competent Authority to have triennial review entitles aggrieved officers to have mandamus from Court to have a review.

       Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 makes it obligatory on the part of the Central Government to re-determine the strength and composition of each cadre at intervals of every three years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, contained in sub-rule (2), the proviso to said sub-rule empowers the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time. The aforesaid Cadre Rules, more particularly, sub-rule (2) thereof was amended on 10th of March, 1995 and by such amendment, in place of the expression at the intervals of every three years , the expression ordinarily at the interval of every five years was substituted. We are however concerned in the case in hand with pre-amended provisions. Under the Promotion Regulation, when select lists are prepared, the substantive vacancies anticipated in course of the period of 12 months commencing from the date of preparation of the lists are taken into account. The Cadre strength determined under the Cadre Rules, plays an important role inasmuch as the number of members of the State Police Service, included in the list will not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of period of 12 months, as provided under Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulation. The procedure for preparation of the list has been succinctly indicated in the aforesaid Promotion Regulation. This being the statutory provisions, the question for consideration is whether infraction on the part of the appropriate authority, in the matter of discharge of its obligation in relation to the determination of cadre, entitles an employee to obtain a mandamus from the Court, requiring the appropriate authority to discharge their obligation in accordance with law and consequently to redetermine the case of these appellants in respect of those vacancies which were found to be available by the competent authority itself. (Para 3)

       It also transpires from the available records that the Union of India, no-where has even indicated as to how it would be unworkable if a direction is issued by this Court for re-consideration of the case of promotion to the IPS Cadre on the basis of the additional vacancies which have been found to be available. It would, therefore be not appropriate for this Court to deny the relief to the appellants on the ground of apprehended administrative chaos, if the appellants are otherwise entitled to the same. It is no doubt true that while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, Courts examine the question of administrative chaos or unsettling the settled position, but in the absence of any materials on record, the Court should not be justified in accepting the apprehension of any administrative chaos or unsettling the settled position, on the mere oral submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General, without any materials in support of the same. On examining the records of the case, we do not find an iota of material, indicating the so-called administrative chaos, likely to occur in the event any direction is issued for re-consideration of the case of promotion on the basis of the alteration of the cadre strength. (Para 6)

       The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed by Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. The language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, as it stood prior to its amendment is rather peremptory in nature and thus it requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned and make such alteration therein as it deems fit. It is no doubt true that an infraction of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an employee for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But it cannot be denied that if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation is forth-coming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances under which the exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may well approach a Court and a Court in its turn would be well within its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, depending upon the circumstances of the case. When certain power has been conferred upon the Central Government for examining the cadre strength, necessarily the same is coupled with a duty to comply with the requirements of the law and any infraction on that score cannot be whittled down on the hypothesis that no vested right of any employee is being jeopardised. When Rules and Regulations provide for certain things to be done at a certain period, the same should normally be observed and if there has been a failure, the Court should compel the performance of that duty. (Para 7)