IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
A.K.Sikri, V.K.Jain, JJ.
Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Association - Appellant
Versus
Central Secretariat Service, Direct Recruit Assistants Association - Respondent
W.P(C) No. 4876/2007 & CM No. 6943, 11867, 11868/2009 & 1178/2010
Decided On : 26-05-2010
Central Secretariat Service Section Officers Grade/Stenographers Grade B (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 - Regulations 23 & 4 - Quashing of Reg. 4 - Eligibility to sit in Limited Department Competition Examination for Section Officers - Rule 13 of Central Secretarial Service, 1962 - Since only a person who passes the LDCE is allowed to become a Section Officer, the test being common for both the Assistants and the Stenographers, both stand on an equal footing after passing the test and any difference in their qualifications and experience prior to the passing of test then becomes immaterial - Regulations 4 is not altra vires - Tribunal was not justified in taking contrary view to Joginder Lal Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India, CWP 112/1995 - Writ Petition allowed.
V.K. Jain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.05.2007 in O.A.No. 145/2006 read with O.A. No. 669/2006, whereby the Tribunal declined to recall/modify its order dated 11.11.2005 passed in OA No. 1435/2005, quashing para 4 of the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers Grade/Stenographers Grade B (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) whereby the members of the Central Secretariat Stenographer Services were eligible to sit in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post of Section Officers.
2. The Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (hereinafter referred to as CSSS) is one of the three Central Secretariat Services, the other two being Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and the Central Secretariat Clerical Service. Rule 13 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
"13. Recruitment to the Section Officers' and the Assistants' Grade - (1) Section Officers Grade - Twenty per cent of the regular vacancies in the Section Officers' Grade in any cadre shall be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of the result of a competitive examination held by the Commission for this purpose, from time to time. The remaining vacancies shall be filled by appointment of persons included in the Select List for the Section Officers' Grade. Such appointments shall be made in the order of seniority in the Select List except when for reasons to be recorded in writing, a person is not considered fit for such appointment on his turn.
Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rule reads as under:-
23. Regulations. - The Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions may make regulations, not inconsistent with these rules, to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient, for the purpose of giving effect to these rules."
3. Regulation 4 of Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade `B' (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 reads as under:-
Conditions of Eligibility - Any permanent or temporary officer of the Assistants' Grade of the Central Secretariat Service or of Grade C of the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service who, on the crucial date, satisfies following conditions, shall be eligible to appear at the examination."
4. In the LDCE held in the year 1975, for preparation of a list of candidates qualified to be appointed to the grade of Section Officers in the Central Secretariat Service, Stenographers belonging to grade-II of the CSSS were allowed to compete along with the Assistants. This was challenged by some Assistants by filing CWP No. 1122/1975 before this Court. The challenge was based on two counts. The first ground taken by the petitioners before this Court was that the scheme of the Rules and the fourth schedule thereof was such that only the Assistants were meant to compete at the LDCE. Their contention was that the Regulations, to the extent they enabled the Stenographers to compete in the Examination, along with the Assistants, were ultra vires the Rules. The second plea taken by the petitioners was that if the Regulations were not ultra vires, then the Rules themselves were unconstitutional being contrary to Article 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution.
5. A Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the question whether Assistants alone should be allowed to compete at the Examination was entirely administrative, there being no law involved in it. It was noted that the regulations were framed by the same department which had framed the Rules. This Court found it difficult to accept that the department which allowed the Stenographers to compete at the examination, they did not know its own mind re
Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1686
Krishan Kumar Narula v. State of J & K AIR 1967 SC 1368
L Chandar Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Others v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 1
Motor General Traders & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1984) 1 SCC 222
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Others (2008) 5 SCC 287 : 2008 102 DRJ 393 SC)
State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer (2003) 5 SCC 448
State of Punjab & Another v. Devans Modern Breweries Limited & Another (2004) 11 SCC 26
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.