Government Of India vs G. Limbadri Rao

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1130

2004(7) Supreme 756
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan and Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Government of India -Appellant
versus
G. Limbadri Rao & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6234 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11708 of 2003)
Decided on 22-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Subba Rao and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocate (NP), B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate (NP).

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997-Regulation 4(b)(ii)-Appointment to post of IAS-Preparation of select list of Non-State Civil Services Officers for appointment to IAS-Date of eligibility-For recruitment year 2002, eligibility of officers is reckoned from 1st of January in the year in which SCM meets which would be 1.1.2002 in the instant case-Proviso to Reg. 4 stating that State Government shall not consider case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January in which decision is taken to propose the names for consideration of the Committee-Proposal sent by the State Government in January 2002-1st respondent having completed age of 54 years on 1.1.2002-He was not entitled for considering his name for appointment to the post of IAS by selection-High Court s observation that eligibility of officers were reckoned from 1.1.2001 is a misinterpretation of Rules and Regulations-High Court had given relief to 1st respondent under an inadvertent typographical error in a letter of State Government-However, in remaining paragraphs, position was made clear-Impugned judgment passed by the High Court held not sustainable.
       Held : There is no dispute whatsoever before us that the first respondent s date of birth is 20.1.1947 and he has attained the age of 54 years as on 20.1.2001. It is the case of the first respondent that the other respondents have set in motion, the selection process on 25.10.2001 calling for the proposals of the eligible Non-State Civil Services Officers for consideration of their cases for inclusion in the select list. It was further contended that the name of the first respondent ought to have been included in the said list as he satisfies all the requirements. As is evident from the impugned order dated 2.1.2002, the respondents-authorities refused to include the name of the first respondent herein solely on the ground that the proposals are required to be sent in respect of the vacancies that have arisen during 2001 and that are available as on 1.1.2002 and by which date the first respondent herein attained 54 years of age as on 1.1.2002. We have already extracted Regulation 4 of the Regulations which would make it clear that the State Government while considering the proposals is required to consider the case of the person not belonging to the State Civil Services but serving in connection with the affairs of the State who is of outstanding merit and ability and holding a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity and has completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of January of the year in which he has been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Services. The State Government is required to propose the names of such persons who possess such qualifications for consideration of the Committee. However, the proviso mandates that the State Government shall not consider the case of the person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for consideration of the Committee. (Paras 14 and 16)
       The High Court is not correct in allowing the writ petition of the first respondent by misquoting Regulation 4. It is seen from the records that for the recruitment year 2002, the proposals were received in that year and the eligibility of officers were reckoned from the 1st of January, 2002 as per the provisions of the selection Regulations. The High Court s observation that the eligibility of the officers were to be reckoned from 1.1.2001 is a misinterpretation of the Rules and Regulations and this interpretation would bring to naught the entire selection process undertaken by the Union Public Service Commission not only for the Government of Andhra Pradesh but for all the State/Cadres where selections have been made under the selection Regulations. The interpretation of the Rules by the High Court is not a harmonious construction of interpretation of the Rules and Regulations and if not set aside would have wide scale implications on the selection of officers for appointment to the IAS under the selection Regulations since the Selection Committee would then be required to consider the eligibility of the officers of a previous and not the current year. Moreover, the High Court has given relief to the first respondent herein under an inadvertent typographical error in a letter of the State Government dated 25.10.2001 and this essentially circumvents the letter and spirit of the statutory Rules and Regulations. The typographical error in the D.O. letter dated 25.10.2001 in the "subject" as specified:- IAS - Select List of Non-S.C.S. Officers for appointment to the IAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 for the year 2001 - Proposals - Called for. However, in the remaining paras, the position has been made clear. The eligibility was as on 1.1.2002 as indicated in paragraphs 2 & 3, that the proposals had been called for from the various departments. It is amply clear from the Regulation that eligibility of officers is reckoned from the 1st of January in the year in which the SCM meets which would be 1.1.2002 in the instant case. (Paras 18 and 19)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.8.2002 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9653 of 2002 following the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9182 of 2002 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.

3. During the year 2001, as an advance action for the year 2002, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh s General Administrative Department, vide their D.O. letter No. 1875/Spl.A/2001-02 dated 25.10.2001 decided to send necessary proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of select list of Non-State Civil Service Officers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS under provisions of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). By this letter, all the Secretaries of the State Government Departments had been requested to furnish the names of eligible Non-SCS officers for appointment to the post of IAS (Appointment by Selection) for sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of the select list of 2002 for appointment to the IAS under the selection Regulations. In the "subject" heading of the said letter, the State Government had inadvertently indicated that proposals are being called for preparation of the select list of Non-SCS officers for the year 2001 instead of 2002. However, in paragraph 2 of the said letter, it was correctly stated that the State Government had decided to send the proposal to the Union Public Service Commission for preparing the select list of 2002 for appointment to the IAS. In paragraph 3 of the letter, it was stated that those candidates who have not crossed 54 years of age as on 1.1.2002 were eligible.

4. Aggrieved by the non- inclusion, the first respondent herein (G. Limbadri Rao), a Non-SCS officer of Andhra Pradesh, had filed O.A.No. 1711 of 2001 against the Union of India before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The first respondent raised three contentions before the Tribunal.

(a) As in the subject of the letter, it was mentioned that proposal for preparation of the select list for appointment of Non-SCS officers to the IAS for the year 2001 is to be forwarded to the UPSC. The applicant contended that the mention of the year 2002 in para 2 and para 3 of the letter was a mistake. The year 2001 mentioned in the subject only is correct.

(b) In terms of the proviso to Regulation 4(iii) of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, the State Government shall not consider the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for the consideration of the Committee. Thus the applicant contended that as per the letter of the State Government issued on 25.10.2001, wherein in the subject it was mentioned that proposal for preparation of the select list for appointment of Non-SCS officers to the IAS for the year 2001 is to be forwarded to the UPSC, the select list of 2001 is to be prepared and not the select list of 2002. Therefore, he is eligible for consideration as on 1.1.2001 as he has not crossed the age of 54 years.

(c) The Government of India amended Rule 16 of the All India Services death-cum-retirement Benefit Rules, 1958 (sub-Rule (1) enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years in respect of AIS officers including IAS. It is, therefore, just and proper to proportionately increase the maximum age list to 56 years under Regulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. Failure to do so by the Government of India is affecting the fundamental right of the applicant who is eligible and entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of IAS.

5. The Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.5.2002 upheld the decision of the State Government not to include his name in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document