1. Challenge to government orders keeping rules in abeyance and dispute regarding the determination of vacancies for direct recruitment of government officials. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 635
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C.Lahoti : S.R.Babu
State Of A.P.
Versus
Civil Supplies Services Assn
Case No. : 16782 of 1996
Date of Decision : 3/29/00
Important Points
A Tribunal cannot direct the government to frame rules in a specific manner or implement rules kept in abeyance, as legislative rules can be modified by the government. Additionally, determinations of recruitment vacancies must be based on appropriate records and information.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Rule-making
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Rules framed by Government - Power to keep rules in abeyance - Rules of a legislative character can be repealed or modified by the Government at any time - Administrative Tribunal cannot issue directions to the Government to frame rules in any particular manner nor direct the Government to give effect to rules which have been kept in abeyance. (Para 2)
(B) Administrative Law - Determination of vacancies for direct recruitment - In the absence of appropriate information and records as to the number of vacancies available, a Tribunal cannot proceed to analyze and conclude the specific number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
These appeals arise from orders passed by an Administrative Tribunal. In the first instance, the Tribunal quashed a government order that kept certain rules in abeyance on the grounds that the Public Service Commission was not consulted. In the second instance, the Tribunal fixed the number of vacancies for direct recruitment to a specific post, despite conflicting figures provided by government officers and a lack of supporting records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notification keeping rules in abeyance did not deal with conditions of service as contemplated under Article 309. It held that the Tribunal exceeded its authority by directing the government on how to frame rules. Regarding the recruitment vacancies, the court observed that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion without having the necessary records or appropriate information before it.
Issues: Whether an Administrative Tribunal can direct the government to frame rules in a specific manner or implement rules kept in abeyance, and whether the Tribunal can determine the number of recruitment vacancies without adequate factual records.
Ratio Decidendi: Rules of a legislative character are subject to repeal or modification by the government; therefore, a Tribunal cannot mandate the framing of such rules or the implementation of those kept in abeyance. Furthermore, any judicial or quasi-judicial determination regarding the number of vacancies for recruitment must be based on appropriate particulars and records.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Administrative Law - Determination of vacancies for direct recruitment - In the absence of appropriate information and records as to the number of vacancies available, a Tribunal cannot proceed to analyze and conclude the specific number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
These appeals arise from orders passed by an Administrative Tribunal. In the first instance, the Tribunal quashed a government order that kept certain rules in abeyance on the grounds that the Public Service Commission was not consulted. In the second instance, the Tribunal fixed the number of vacancies for direct recruitment to a specific post, despite conflicting figures provided by government officers and a lack of supporting records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notification keeping rules in abeyance did not deal with conditions of service as contemplated under Article 309. It held that the Tribunal exceeded its authority by directing the government on how to frame rules. Regarding the recruitment vacancies, the court observed that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion without having the necessary records or appropriate information before it.
Issues: Whether an Administrative Tribunal can direct the government to frame rules in a specific manner or implement rules kept in abeyance, and whether the Tribunal can determine the number of recruitment vacancies without adequate factual records.
Ratio Decidendi: Rules of a legislative character are subject to repeal or modification by the government; therefore, a Tribunal cannot mandate the framing of such rules or the implementation of those kept in abeyance. Furthermore, any judicial or quasi-judicial determination regarding the number of vacancies for recruitment must be based on appropriate particulars and records.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that failure to consult Public Service Commission invalidates rule suspension versus the position that legislative rules can be modified or repealed by government. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Notifications not dealing with conditions of service under Article 309 are modifiable; conclusions on vacancy numbers must be based on appropriate records and information. (Para 2 , 5 )
4. Tribunals cannot dictate the framing of legislative rules or determine factual vacancy numbers without supporting records. (Para 2 , 5 )
5. Appeals allowed and Tribunal orders set aside; vacancy determination remanded for re-examination based on government-furnished particulars. (Para 2 , 5 )
6. Can a Tribunal direct the government to frame rules in a specific manner or enforce rules kept in abeyance?
No. The court held that the Tribunal cannot give directions to the government to frame rules in any particular manner nor direct the government to give effect to rules that have been kept in abeyance. (Para 2 )
7. Can a Tribunal determine the number of vacancies for recruitment without appropriate records?
No. The court held that in the absence of appropriate information and records as to the number of vacancies available, a Tribunal cannot proceed to analyze and conclude the specific number of vacancies available for direct recruitment. (Para 5 )
8. Are rules framed by the government considered legislative in character?
Yes. The court noted that rules framed by the government are legislative in character and can be repealed or modified at any time. (Para 2 )
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the order made by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 117 of 1995. In substance, the claim made before the Tribunal is for quashing G.O.M.S. No. 423, Food and Civil Supplies (II) dated 4.10.1994 on the ground that it is arbitrary, illegal, void and unsustainable.
(2) BY that notification certain rules framed by the Government in terms of G.O.M.S. No. 408, Food and Civil Supplies (II) dated 28.10.t993 were kept in abeyance. The Tribunal took the view that Public Service Commission had been consulted while issuing earlier notification but not the latter one. It was, however, noticed that the said notification dated 4.10.94 does not deal with condition of Service as contemplated by Article 309 as certain rules were kept in abeyance. The Tribunal was persuaded to direct the Government, while quashing the said G.O.M.S. No. 423 dated 4.10.94 to give effect to G.O.M.S. No. 408 dated 28.10.93 to the extent it is consistent with the Presidential Order. The complaint made in this appeal is that the rule framed by the Government is the subject matter of G.O.M.S. No. 408 dated 28.10.93 and is legislative in character and such a rule can at any time be repealed or modified and when the matter was under consideration by the Government, the Tribunal could not have issued the direction in the manner in which it had been done in the present case. We find force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal could neither have given directions to the Government to frame rules in any particular manner nor direct the Government to give effect to the rules in part which were kept in abeyance. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. C.A.Nos. 16783-16787/96
(3) THESE appeals are filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the order made by the Tribunal fixing the number of the vacancies of Deputy Tehsildars to be filled up by direct recruitment.
(4) BEFORE the Tribunal serious contentions were raised by both the sides as to the number of vacancies available insofar as Deputy Tehsildars are concerned. The Tribunal itself has noticed at different stages the different figures furnished by the various Officers of the Government. Certain figures are set out as under: a) As on 1-7-1988 403 } Naturally including earlier b) As on 1-7-1992 264 } figure as no direct c) As on 1-7-1992 309 recruitment was held and } deducting the figure of vacancies already noti } fied viz., 179. Certain figures are given on the last page of the report of the sub-committee which are said to be based on tables. They are as follows : As on 1-7-88 227 (includes 179 posts already notified to APPSC for the year 1990-91) As on 1-7-90 251 (includes 179 posts already notified for 1990-91) As on 1-7-92 257 (includes 179 posts already notified for the year 1990-91)
(5) THEN again, the Tribunal could not be sure as to the number of vacancies available and issued directions to the Government and to the Commissioner )o furnish certain records which would indicate the number of vacancies. These figures were also not available before the Tribunal. In the absence of appropriate information as to the number of vacancies available, it is difficult to perceive as to how the Tribunal could have proceeded to analyse and come to the conclusion that there are 545 vacancies available to be filled in by direct recruitment insofar as Deputy Tehsildars were concerned as on 1.9.92. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals and set aside the order made by the Tribunal and direct it to re-examine the matter. The Government shall furnish the appropriate particulars to the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today and the Tribunal shall decide as to the number of vacancies available and give appropriate directions in that behalf. In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained on any appointment that has been made pur
