The court held that the non-inclusion of the respondent's name in the Select List was justified, as the Selection Committee had considered his service record and had graded him as 'Good', while 24 other officers were graded as 'Very Good'. The court also found that the Regulations did not require the Selection Committee to record reasons for not including an officer in the Select List. The court further held that the withholding of the respondent's integrity certificate was justified, as there was a departmental proceeding pending against him with serious charges. The court also held that the respondent's appointment as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement was not a reduction in rank, as his appointment to the IAS cadre post had been discontinued by the Government of India.

Headnote:
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE - APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION REGULATIONS, 1955 - SELECTION COMMITTEE - NON-INCLUSION OF NAME IN SELECT LIST - REASONS - NATURAL JUSTICE - INTEGRITY CERTIFICATE - WITHHOLDING - JUSTIFICATION - REDUCTION IN RANK.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service officer, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre post on an ad hoc basis. He was subsequently confirmed in the post and held various positions, including Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Secretary. In 1978, the respondent's name was not included in the annual Select List for promotion to the IAS cadre. He filed a writ petition challenging the non-inclusion of his name in the Select List, alleging that it was violative of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (the Regulations) and the principles of natural justice. The respondent also contended that the withholding of his integrity certificate by the Arunachal Pradesh government was unjustified.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the non-inclusion of the respondent's name in the Select List was justified. The court found that the Selection Committee had considered the respondent's service record and had graded him as 'Good', while 24 other officers were graded as 'Very Good'. The court also found that the withholding of the respondent's integrity certificate was justified, as there was a departmental proceeding pending against him with serious charges. The court further held that the respondent's appointment as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement was not a reduction in rank, as his appointment to the IAS cadre post had been discontinued by the Government of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-inclusion of the respondent's name in the Select List was violative of the Regulations and the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the withholding of the respondent's integrity certificate was justified. 3. Whether the respondent's appointment as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement was a reduction in rank.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-inclusion of the respondent's name in the Select List was justified, as the Selection Committee had considered his service record and had graded him as 'Good', while 24 other officers were graded as 'Very Good'. The court also found that the Regulations did not require the Selection Committee to record reasons for not including an officer in the Select List. 2. The court held that the withholding of the respondent's integrity certificate was justified, as there was a departmental proceeding pending against him with serious charges. The court found that the Arunachal Pradesh government had considered the nature and gravity of the charges against the respondent and had decided to withhold his integrity certificate. 3. The court held that the respondent's appointment as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement was not a reduction in rank, as his appointment to the IAS cadre post had been discontinued by the Government of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the respondent's writ petition and discharged the Rule issued by the learned Single Judge.

Pathak, C.J. (Actg.)-

This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.80 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 124 of 1978, allowing the writ petition of the respondent.

2. In that writ petition the respondent impugned the order dated 28.3.78 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh appointing him as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement, Government of Arunachal Pradesh while he was serving in the I.A.S. Carde post of Deputy Secretary (P&D) and Ex-officio Secretary (Education). It has been alleged in the petition that the aforesaid impugned appointment order was consequent upon non-inclusion of his name in the list of State Civil Service members suitable for the Indian Administrative Service, for short the Select List, and it has been prayed for a mandamus to restore his name in the Select List or in the alternative for the issue of certiorari quashing the entire Select List itself for the year 1978.

The aforesaid proceeding leading to the present appeal arose in the following way. The respondent was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Political Officer Grade II vide NEFA Administration Notification No. GO. 8/55 dated 19.9.55 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 1.9.58. This post was subsequently re-designated as Extra Assistant Commissioner. By Notification No. NFS. 2/71-F dated 18.5.71 the respondent was appointed to officiate on an adhoc and purely temporary basis until further orders as]'Additional Deputy Commissioner. The appointment had to be made in the public interest since no I.A.S./I.F.A.S. cadre officer was available for filling the said vacancy. By Memo No. 11/21/71- NEFA dated 18.6.71 Government of India, sanctioned this appointment under Rule 8(b) of the I.F.A.S. Rules 1956. Later, the Government of India, by the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre strength) Sixth Amendment Regulation, 1972 made under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951 read with rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954, included the posts of Additional Deputy Secretaries and Secretaries among the posts under the Arunachal Pradesh Administration. By Government of India Arunachal Pradesh Notification No. NFS. 14/72, the Chief Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh appointed the respondent whose name was borne on the Select List for promotion to I.A.S. (U.T.) cadre posts under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 with effect from 26.11.73 with the approval of the Government of India. While the respondent continued to serve in that capacity, by Government of India Notification No. U. 14016/32/72-UTS dated 1st February, 1974 the respondent was appointed to officiate as Additional Deputy Commissioner and to officiate as Deputy Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Administration with effect from 26.11.73 until further orders. The respondent was also ordered to take over as Ex-officio Secretary (Education), with effect from 20.9.76 in addition to his own duties during the absence of that incumbent on leave. He was further ordered to take over as Director of Public Instruction with effect from 1.1.77 in addition to his own duties. Thus, according to the respondent, he had been continuously officiating in I.A.S. (UT) cadre posts from 9.10.72 till 3.11.78 and his name was borne in the annual Select Lists for promotion to I.A.S. (UT) cadre from 1.10.73 to 14.3.78.

3. However, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh by its Memo No. Apptt/161/75 dated 31.3.76 drew up a departmental proceeding against the respondent who filed his written statement in defence. On receipt of the enquiry report dated 19.11.77, the respondent submitted a representation against it to the Lt. Governor, Arunachal Pradesh on 22.2.78. The annual Selection Committee met on 30.12.77 and in the Select List prepared by the said Committee, the name of the respondent did not find place. It was contended by the respondent that consequent upon the non-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1981 Supreme(Gau) 98

GAUHATI HIGH COURTD.Pathak, T.C.Das, JJ.Union of India and Another -AppellantVersusMukunda Murari Lal -RespondentWrit Appeal No. 2 of 1980Decided On : 03-09-1981

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.Pathak, T.C.Das, JJ.
Union of India and Another -Appellant
Versus
Mukunda Murari Lal -Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1980
Decided On : 03-09-1981