Back
Rajasthan High Court
JAGAT NARAYAN,L. N. CHHANGANI
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Guman Singh - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 57 of 1968
Decided On : 01/20/1970
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Service Rules - Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 - Rule 28-B(2) and circular dated 27-8-66 issued thereunder - Validity - Whether void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Whether repugnant to Rule 32 of the Rules - Whether fetters the exercise of reasonable discretion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - Whether the DPC is a quasi-judicial body - Whether the circular was issued under the authority of the Government - Whether the proceedings of the DPC were vitiated because the adverse remarks were not communicated to the petitioner before the meeting of the Selection Committee - Whether the Rules and circulars were made mala fide at the instance of the Ministers and the former Chief Secretary to favour their favourites and relatives.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), challenged the validity of Rule 28-B(2) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, and the circular dated 27-8-66 issued thereunder, contending that they were void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that they fettered the exercise of reasonable discretion by the DPC. The petitioner also contended that the DPC was a quasi-judicial body and that the circular was not issued under the authority of the Government. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the proceedings of the DPC were vitiated because the adverse remarks were not communicated to him before the meeting of the Selection Committee and that the Rules and circulars were made mala fide at the instance of the Ministers and the former Chief Secretary to favour their favourites and relatives.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 28-B(2) and the circular dated 27-8-66 were not void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that they were not repugnant to Rule 32 of the Rules. The Court also held that the circular did not fetter the exercise of reasonable discretion by the DPC and that the DPC was not a quasi-judicial body. Furthermore, the Court held that the circular was issued under the authority of the Government and that the proceedings of the DPC were not vitiated because the adverse remarks were not communicated to the petitioner before the meeting of the Selection Committee. Finally, the Court held that the allegation of mala fides was baseless.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 28-B(2) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, and the circular dated 27-8-66 issued thereunder were void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Rule 28-B(2) and the circular dated 27-8-66 were repugnant to Rule 32 of the Rules? 3. Whether the circular fettered the exercise of reasonable discretion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)? 4. Whether the DPC was a quasi-judicial body? 5. Whether the circular was issued under the authority of the Government? 6. Whether the proceedings of the DPC were vitiated because the adverse remarks were not communicated to the petitioner before the meeting of the Selection Committee? 7. Whether the Rules and circulars were made mala fide at the instance of the Ministers and the former Chief Secretary to favour their favourites and relatives?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 28-B(2) and the circular dated 27-8-66 were not void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they did not create an arbitrary or unreasonable classification and they were rationally related to the legitimate objective of promoting efficiency in the administration. 2. Rule 28-B(2) and the circular dated 27-8-66 were not repugnant to Rule 32 of the Rules because they did not conflict with or override the provisions of Rule 32. 3. The circular did not fetter the exercise of reasonable discretion by the DPC because it provided clear and objective criteria for the assessment of merit and it allowed the DPC to consider all relevant factors in making its selection. 4. The DPC was not a quasi-judicial body because it was not exercising a judicial function and it was not bound to follow the principles of natural justice. 5. The circular was issued under the authority of the Government because it was approved by the Cabinet and it was issued by the Chief Secretary, who was the head of the Services in the State. 6. The proceedings of the DPC were not vitiated because the adverse remarks were not communicated to the petitioner before the meeting of the Selection Committee because the petitioner had no means of knowing whether or not the Committee gave him 1½ marks only for the year 1965-66 on the basis of these adverse remarks, which were not communicated to him. 7. The allegation of mala fides was baseless because there was no material or circumstance to show that the change in the Rules was made to benefit the persons who were selected on merit.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the special appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and held that Rules 32 and 28-B were valid and that no part of the circular dated 27th August 1966 was repugnant to them. The Court also held that the selection of Sarvashri R. D. Mathur, S. C. Pagoria, Munna Lal Goyal, and Prithvi Singh to the Senior Scale of RAS was valid.
JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J. :- This is a special appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 79 of 1967*under Art. 226 of the Constitution by which he held R. 28-B (2) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 to be void and parts of the circular dated 27-8-66 "bad" and in consequence issued a direction that the four officers of that Service who had been impleaded in the writ petition namely Sarva Shri R. D. Mathur, S. C. Pagoria, Munna Lal Goyal and Prithvi Singh shall not hold senior scale posts.
* Reported in AIR 1970 Raj173.
2. The writ petition was filed by Shri Guman Singh, a member of the R. A. S. who was considered for promotion but was not promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the senior scale, but the above four officers along with several others were promoted. These four officers alone were impleaded as they were junior to the petitioner in the ordinary time scale and the others who were promoted were senior to him.
3. The Rajasthan Administrative Service was constituted in 1954, and officers belonging to various covenanting States were appointed to it initially. Under the R. A. S. Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) recruitment to the Service is made from different sources as enumerated in Rule 7. Broadly speaking one source is a competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission and the other sources are selections from specified categories of subordinate services. In 1957 an emergency recruitment took place in which selection was made from amongst other categories of subordinate services as well as from several other classes including persons in private service through the Public Service Commission which held a limited competitive examination.
4. The petitioner was an Inspector in the Excise Department from 1948 and was recruited to the Service from this source. Shri R. D. Mathur respondent, was also recruited from this source. Shri S. C. Pagoria and Shri Munna Lal Goyal, respondents, were recruited in 1956 as a result of a competitive examination held by the P. S. C. Shri Prithvi Singh, respondent, was promoted from amongst Tehsilders in 1957.
5. There are three grades in the R. A. S. :-
(1) Ordinary time scale Rs. 285-800 (hereinafter referred to as the Junior Scale)
(2) Senior Scale Rs. 500-1150.
(3) Selection grade Rs. 900-1500.
In this case we are concerned with promotion from Junior scale to Senior Scale. Formerly this promotion was made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on the recommendation of a D. P. C. Government had issued a confidential circular in 1960 No. F. 1 (6) Apptts. 'D'/60 dated 31-8-60 under which merit was to be evaluated by allotting marks on the previous record of the officer. This circular was applicable to all State Services except the Rajasthan Judicial Service or the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service which are under the control of the High Court.
6. The System of marking was as follows :-
"(i) Confidential Rolls for the last 5 years may be examined. 5 marks be allotted for each years' confidential roll and marking be done in accordance with the following formula :-
1. Excellent … 5 marks
2. Very good … 4 marks
3. Good … 3 marks
4. Satisfactory … 2½ marks
5. Unsatisfactory … 2 marks
6. Adverse … 1½ marks
7. Adverse with punishment … 1 mark
(ii) The entire record previous to the last 5 years be allotted 50 marks and the marks be allotted on the following basis :
1. Average or good record, 50 marks.
2. Deduction upto 5 marks for each punishment awarded. (No deduction is made for mere warning but where warning has been recorded in a Confidential Roll it should be treated as punishment and marks should be deducted)."
On the basis of the above marking only such officers were to be considered for promotion as had secured at least 62½ marks out of the total of 75 marks. If a junior person had secured more marks he was not to be preferred to a senior man who had secured at least 62½ marks.
7. It was stated that the above marking system
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
