1997 Supreme(SC) 872

1997(6) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Surjit Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3641-42 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23423-24 of 1996)
Decided on 9-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocates, with him for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Dr. D.C. Vohra, Arun K. Sinha, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Central Secretariat Service Rules-Section 16(1) -Recruitment of Section Officers of Central Secretariat-Dispute between direct recruits and promotees-Power of Government to carry forward all unfilled vacancies to direct recruits-Vacancies meant for direct recruits may be carried forward for two years after recruitment year-Thereafter unfilled vacancies would be thrown open to respective cadres-Tribunal wrongly held that all these vacancies are meant to be thrown open to promotees-Tribunal wrongly stated that if they commit mistake, it is for this Court to correct the same-That view is not conducive to proper functioning to judicial service.

       Held that the number of the vacancies to be filed by the substantive appointment of persons included in Select List for the Section Officers Grade in a recruitment year in a cadre, shall be proportionate to vacancies reported by that cadre to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to be filled by direct recruitment for the year. Provided further that if sufficient number of candidates are not available for filling up the vacancies in a cadre, in any recruitment year, either by direct recruitment or by appointment of persons included in the select list for Section Officer s grade, i.e. by promotion the unfilled vacancies shall also be carried forward for not more than two recruitment years, beyond the year to which the recruitment relates, whereafter the vacancies, if any, still remaining unfilled, belonging to one mode of recruitment, shall be transferred as additional vacancies for the order mode of recruitment. In other words, where sufficient number of direct recruit candidates for the unfilled vacancies are not available for two recruitment years prior to the recruitment year, all unfilled vacancies will be thrown open to the respective quotas, namely, by promotions and vice versa, as the case may be. (Para 4)

       The Tribunal in the impugned order made in O.A. No. 629 of 1994, on March 22, 1995 and the review order following therefrom on May 23, 1996, has put the clock back, stating that prior to the amendment of the Rules putting two years limitation on carry forward of the vacancies meant for the direct recruits would mean that earlier to that date the Government of India had no power to carry forward and thereafter, when the Rules had come into force, the Government had power to carry forward the vacancies limited to two years. Therefore, all the promotions made earlier to the amendment of the Rules must be held to have been thrown open to the promotees and subsequently, as and when the vacancies would not be filled up within two recruitment years, after the amendment has been brought into force after expiry of two recruitment years, the unfilled vacancies reserved for direct recruits would also be thrown open to the promotees; the seniority list is required to be prepared afresh in that manner. (Para 2)

       The contention of the promotees which was found acceptable to the Tribunal that preceding the date of amendment the Government was devoid of power to carry forward all unfilled vacancies to the direct recruits and that all these vacancies are meant to be thrown open to the promotees, is clearly a misinterpretation of the rules and on that basis the directions came to be issued by the Tribunal. This Court had suggested on earlier occasion that vacancies meant for the direct recruits may be carried forward for two years after the recruitment year and thereafter the unfilled vacancies would be thrown open to the respective cadres. Under these circumstances, the view of the Tribunal is clearly illegal. (Para 5)

       (ii) Judicial Service-Functioning of-When a patent error is brought to the notice of Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal is duty bound to correct its mistake of law by review of its order/directions-Tribunal wrongly stated that if they commit mistake, it is for this court to correct the same-That view being not conducive to proper functioning of judicial service.