Back
2006(5) Supreme 417
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.N. Srikrishna and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Satya Narain Shukla — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2475 of 2006
With
Civil Appeal No. 2081/2003
Decided on 11-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sunita Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Punit Dutt Tyagi, Advocate.
Held : Section 3 is an enabling power of the Central Government to make Rules for the regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service for persons appointed to the all-India Services. This enabling power is hedged in with the requirement that before doing so there has to be consultation with the State Governments concerned and every rule made in such fashion is to be placed before both the Houses of the Parliament as required by sub-section (2) thereof. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the Central Staffing Scheme is either a Rule or a Regulation within the meaning of Section 3 of the AIS Act, nor is it possible to accept that there is no other power available to the executive to deal with the recruitment and conditions of service otherwise than by a validly made rule under Section 3 of the AIS Act. (Para 15)
It is now well established that the Central Government’s executive power extends to the same subjects and to the same extent as that of the Parliament, as long as it does not infringe any provision of any law made by the Parliament or of the Constitution.(Para 16)
We have not been shown any provisions in these Rules which deal specifically with the subject of the procedure for selection of officers from the said cadre for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India. This is a subject in respect of which the field does not appear to be occupied. Consequently, it was very much open to the executive to resort to executive instructions by way of an office memo for dealing with this subject. The contention, therefore, must fail. (Para 19)
The further contention that para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme leaves room for arbitrary executive action for want of clear cut guidelines has no merit. The guidelines indicated therein are sufficiently clear enough to steer clear of the charge of possible arbitrary use.(Para 20)
(ii) SERVICE LAW — All India Services Act, 1951 — Section 3 — All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 — Selection of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India — Whether the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and above is promotional posts for IAS officers — (No) — Empanellment of a State cadre officer for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is not a promotion.
Held : Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme read in the light of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Samar Singh, (1996) 10 SCC 555 also suggests that appointment to the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is not a promotion for an IAS officer.(Para 23 )
We are, therefore, unable to accept that empanellment of a State cadre officer for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is a promotion as contended. If the argument of the appellant is accepted, then an officer of the State cadre who is appointed to the Government of India can never be sent back to his State cadre, for the benefit of promotion once given cannot be withdrawn unless for extraordinary reasons. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the appellant’s contention that the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is a promotional post for an IAS officer.(Para 24)
(iii) SERVICE LAW — All India Services Act, 1951 — Section 3 — All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 — Empanellment for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India — Appellant was selected as an officer of the Indian Administrative Service and was allotted UP cadre in year 1967 — He held different postings and was promoted to the Super Time Scale in the year 1982 — In September 1996, appellant was considered for empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India, but was not empanelled — Writ petition challenging exclusion of appellant on basis of wrong appreciation of character rolls and ACPs — Plea of malafides — Whether appellant’s non-empanellment is vitiated — (No) — Merely because an officer has an outstanding service record there is no automatic empanellment — Decision for empanellment for the post of Secretary was not based on incomplete ACPs — Failure to prove allegations of malafides — No vitiating factors affecting decision of the Central Government in not empanelling appellant for the post.
Held : From the records we do not see any strong motive for any of the officers to bear animus against the appellant to ensure that he was not empanellment. Dissent is the essence of democracy and merely because one disagrees with another, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the other harbors a grudge against the former.(Para 29)
After careful application of mind to all the contentions urged before us, we are not satisfied that there are any vitiating factors affecting the decision of the Central Government in not empanelling the appellant for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India.(Para 31)
JUDGMENT
Srikrishna, J. — These two appeals impugned the same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and are in the nature of cross appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals arise out of an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), which was moved by Satya Narain Shukla, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’). The Tribunal declined any relief to the appellant and dismissed his original application. The appellant carried a writ petition to the High Court and the Division Bench granted him partial relief. There is an appeal by the appellant in respect of the relief denied to him and there is an appeal by the Union of India in respect of that part of the relief granted to the appellant by the High Court.
The Facts
3. The appellant was selected as an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and was allotted UP cadre in the year 1967. He held different postings and was promoted to the Super Time Scale in the year 1982. In September 1996, the appellant was considered for empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India, but was not empanelled. Several representations were made by him to the authorities against his exclusion from the panel of Additional Secretaries to the Government of India on the ground that his case had been considered on the basis of wrong appreciation of the character rolls and ACRs, which had not been recorded in accordance with the All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. In December 1977 the appellant’s case was reviewed along with those of several other officers of the 1967 batch of IAS officers. His representations were not placed before the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). He was not, however, empanelled.
4. The appellant filed Original Application (OA) No. 38/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, on 28.1.1998. He alleged that the failure of the authorities to include him in the panel for Additional Secretaries to the Government of India was illegal on several grounds including mala fides on the part of some of the reporting officers. He also sought a direction from the Tribunal to the authorities for streamlining the system of recording annual confidential reports (ACRs) and to make the procedure for empanellment objective, fair and transparent. The Tribunal made an interim order on 24.2.1998 directing that further empanellment and postings of 1967 and 1968 batch IAS officers junior to the appellant shall be subject to the decision of the OA. The appellant also submitted a memorial to the President for review of his case for empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India but got no relief.
5. On 15.09.1998, the appellant sought an amendment for amending the relief clause in his OA and prayed for a direction to reconsider his case for empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India and also to consider him for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India. These amendments were allowed on 23.3.1999. On 1.5.1999, he sent another representation to the Cabinet Secretary to decide his earlier memorial addressed to the President and to give him justice by empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India.
6. On 12.5.1999, the Tribunal made a further interim order directing the authorities to complete the appellant’s character roll (CR) and to take a decision on his representations dated 31.8.1998 and 6.3.1999 before considering him for empanellment to the post of Secretary to the Government of India. On 29.7.1999, the Tribunal made a further direction that the appellant’s representation dated 1.5.1999 should be decided before finalising the empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of India. On 31.8.1999, the Government of India informed the appellant that his CR had been completed a
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
