IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 is mandatory and prospective.

Headnote:(a) Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 – Rule 4(2) – In view of the amendment in Rules, cadre review was due in 2003. (Para 29)
        (2000) 5 SCC 728 – Relied upon
        (b) Service Law – Promotion – Right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution – Guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 38)
        (1979) 1 SCC 477 – Relied upon
        (c) Words and Phases – Ordinarily – Means that it does not promote a cast iron rule, it is flexible – It excludes something which is extraordinary or special – Something which is done ‘normally’ and ‘generally’, subject to special provision. (Para 43)
        (1976) 1 SCC 671; (2001) 1 SCC 315; (1974) 1 SCC 128; (2001) 4 SCC 350 – Relied upon
        (d) Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 – Rule 4(2) – Cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions – Lethargy, in-action, an absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within category of just exceptions. (Para 44)
        (1996) 6 SCC 721; 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575 – Relied upon
        (e) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Rule 4(2) operates prospectively – Respondents not responsible in any way for the delay – No plausible explanation offered by the State for the delay – No interference with impugned order. (Para 49)
       Facts of the case:
        In this case the reasonability of the IAS cadre review for U.P. and its effective date as also promotion of S.C.S. officers to IAS cadre has been raised.
       Finding of the Court:
        The only reason for the delay in review is that there was total in-action on the part of the U.P. Government and lackadaisical attitude in discharging its statutory responsibility.
       Result : Appeals disposed.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. In SLP (C) Nos.6758-6759/2009, Union of India and the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission are in appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 delivered by the Delhi High Court on the writ petition filed by Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Ramnawal Singh, the respondents herein.

3. The respondents are members of the State Civil Service (S.C.S.) of the State of Uttar Pradesh and according to them completed eight years of service on 23.07.85 and 4.6.86 respectively. The contention of the respondents is that in terms of Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, a member of the S.C.S., who has attained the age of 54 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the Committee meets, shall be considered by the Committee, provided he was eligible for such consideration on the 1st day of the year or of any of the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held, but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years.

4. Those regulations have been framed in exercise of power under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 8 of Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 and in consultation with the State Government and the Union Public Service Commission.

5. Regulation 5 (1) of the said Regulation provides that such Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the S.C.S. as are held to be suitable for promotion to the service. The number of members of the said civil services to be included in this list shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned but shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies in the year in which such meeting is held.

6. It may be mentioned in this connection that as a result of bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a result of creation of the State of Uttaranchal in terms of the State Reorganization Act, namely Uttar Pradesh State Reorganization Act 2000, two notifications were issued on 21.10.2000. The first was issued under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951 read with Section 72 (2) and (3) of the Reorganization Act and Rule 4 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cadre Rule”).

7. Thus, the Central Government constituted for the State of Uttaranchal an Indian Administrative Service Cadre with effect from 1.11.2000. On 21.10.2000 another notification was issued fixing the cadre strength of State of Uttar Pradesh thereby determining the number of senior posts in the State of Uttar Pradesh as 253.

8. The case of the appellants is that the next cadre review for the State of Uttar Pradesh fell due on 30th April, 2003. To that effect a letter dated 23.1.2003 was written by the Additional Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

9. The further case of the appellants is that several reminders were sent on 5th March, 3rd September, 17th September and 8th December, 2003 but unfortunately the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not respond. Then a further reminder was sent by the Government of India stating therein that four requests were made for the cadre review of the I.A.S. cadre of Uttar Pradesh but no response was received from the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In the said letter the Government of India wanted suitable direction from the concerned officials so that they can furnish the cadre review proposal by 28.2.04. Unfortunately, there was no response and thereafter subsequent reminders were also sent by the Government of India on 14th/17th June, 2004 and 8th October, 2004.

10. Ultimately, a proposal was received from the Government of Uttar Pradesh only in the month of January 2005 and immediately preliminary me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 252

2010 (2) Supreme 521SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From Delhi High Court)R.V. Raveendran and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. Union of India & Another — AppellantsversusHemraj Singh Chauhan & Others — RespondentsCivil Appeal No.2651-52 of 2010(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6758-6759/2009)Decided on : 23-3-2010

IMPORTANT POINT Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 is mandatory and prospective.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 is mandatory and prospective.