Back
High Court Of Delhi
K.R.RAGHAVAN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 725 of 1977
Decided On : 05/04/1979
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Review of administrative action and decision - Distinction between administrative action and administrative decision - Reviewability of administrative action and/or administrative decision - Government's inherent power to redress injustice caused to its employee by administrative action or decision - Whether the impugned order contravened any rules or law - Whether respondent No. 6 could be regarded as a direct recruit to Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service or only a promotee to it - Whether the appointment of respondent No. 6 to Class II of Income-tax Officers Service in 1951 is to be regarded as an ordinary appointment or an appointment made with the background of service put in by him in Central Service Class I Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department from 1947 to 1951 - Whether the consent of Shri Ranbir Chandra to that appointment was caused by wrong representation made by the Government and if so with what effect - Whether the Government was under a duty to give an option to respondent No. 6 to go back to the Emergency Cadre after the Government realised that the said Cadre was not going to be wound up by 31-3-1952 - Whether the enhancement of the seniority of respondent No. 6 violates any rights of the petitioners - Whether the Government could exercise its power under Rule 7 of the 1945 Recruitment Rules to the Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service to allot respondent No. 6 to the said service as if he was a direct recruit from a competitive examination held in 1945 (or in 1948 if the enhancement of seniority was to be on the basis that his service in Class II was to be regarded as half the period of that service in Class 1) or whether this right of the Government came to an end under Rule 7 after Shri Ranbir Chandra was allotted to the Emergency Cadre - Whether the impugned decision of the Government arrived at in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission such as no reasonable person could have arrived at or is it contrary to any law and is it therefore or for any other reasons reviewable by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 6, Shri Ranbir Chandra, was appointed to the Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department in 1947. In 1950, the Government informed him that the Emergency Cadre would be wound up by 31-3-1952 and advised him to look for other job opportunities. Based on this representation, Shri Ranbir Chandra accepted an offer to join the Income-tax Officers (Class II) Service in 1951. However, the Emergency Cadre continued till 1957. Shri Ranbir Chandra made several representations to the Government seeking to rectify the injustice done to him. In 1975, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advised the Government to grant Shri Ranbir Chandra seniority from the date of his initial appointment in the Emergency Cadre in 1947. The Government accepted this recommendation and refixed Shri Ranbir Chandra's seniority in the Income-tax Officers Class I Service. This led to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioners, who were senior to Shri Ranbir Chandra on the basis of their appointment in 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government had the power and the duty to review its action of 1951 in good time and to send back Shri Ranbir Chandra to the Emergency Cadre which still existed in 1952. The Court further held that the Government's decision to reject Shri Ranbir Chandra's representation in 1967 was an administrative decision and not a judicial or quasi-judicial decision, and therefore, it was reviewable. The Court also held that the impugned order contravened the 1945 Recruitment Rules and the 1973 Seniority Rules, and therefore, it was quashed. However, the Court allowed Shri Ranbir Chandra to retain his present position till the Government passed suitable orders in replacement of the impugned order within three months.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government had the power to review its administrative action of appointing Shri Ranbir Chandra to the Income-tax Officers (Class II) Service in 1951? 2. Whether the Government's decision to reject Shri Ranbir Chandra's representation in 1967 was reviewable? 3. Whether the impugned order contravened any rules or law? 4. Whether Shri Ranbir Chandra could be regarded as a direct recruit to Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service or only a promotee to it? 5. Whether the appointment of Shri Ranbir Chandra to Class II of Income-tax Officers Service in 1951 is to be regarded as an ordinary appointment or an appointment made with the background of service put in by him in Central Service Class I Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department from 1947 to 1951? 6. Whether the consent of Shri Ranbir Chandra to that appointment was caused by wrong representation made by the Government and if so with what effect? 7. Whether the Government was under a duty to give an option to Shri Ranbir Chandra to go back to the Emergency Cadre after the Government realised that the said Cadre was not going to be wound up by 31-3-1952? 8. Whether the enhancement of the seniority of Shri Ranbir Chandra violates any rights of the petitioners? 9. Whether the Government could exercise its power under Rule 7 of the 1945 Recruitment Rules to the Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service to allot Shri Ranbir Chandra to the said service as if he was a direct recruit from a competitive examination held in 1945 (or in 1948 if the enhancement of seniority was to be on the basis that his service in Class II was to be regarded as half the period of that service in Class 1) or whether this right of the Government came to an end under Rule 7 after Shri Ranbir Chandra was allotted to the Emergency Cadre? 10. Whether the impugned decision of the Government arrived at in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission such as no reasonable person could have arrived at or is it contrary to any law and is it therefore or for any other reasons reviewable by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government has the power to review its administrative action and decision, provided that it does not cause injustice to others and does not contravene any rules. 2. An administrative decision is reviewable if it is based on irrelevant grounds, if it is unjust, or if it is contrary to law. 3. The Government has the inherent power to redress injustice caused to its employee by administrative action or decision. 4. Shri Ranbir Chandra could not be regarded as a direct recruit to Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service as he was not allotted to that service as a result of the competitive examination. 5. The appointment of Shri Ranbir Chandra to Class II of Income-tax Officers Service in 1951 is to be regarded as an ordinary appointment and not an appointment made with the background of service put in by him in Central Service Class I Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department from 1947 to 1951. 6. The consent of Shri Ranbir Chandra to the appointment in Class II of Income-tax Officers Service was caused by wrong representation made by the Government, and therefore, it was voidable. 7. The Government was under a duty to give an option to Shri Ranbir Chandra to go back to the Emergency Cadre after the Government realised that the said Cadre was not going to be wound up by 31-3-1952. 8. The enhancement of the seniority of Shri Ranbir Chandra violated the rights of the petitioners who were senior to him on the basis of their appointment in 1950. 9. The Government could not exercise its power under Rule 7 of the 1945 Recruitment Rules to the Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service to allot Shri Ranbir Chandra to the said service as if he was a direct recruit from a competitive examination held in 1945 or 1948. 10. The impugned decision of the Government was not arrived at in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission and was contrary to law, and therefore, it was reviewable by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition partly. The impugned order was quashed, but Shri Ranbir Chandra was allowed to retain his present position till the Government passed suitable orders in replacement of the impugned order within three months.
( 1 ) THE relevant facts of this case are few but they give rise to some questions of law which are important and yet not covered by judicial decisions. Hence the reference to the Full Bench. INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND HIS SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT AS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CLASS II
( 2 ) THE Federal Public Service Commission held a combined competitive examination in 1945 to as many as eight Central Services including (1) Indian Audit and Accounts Services, (2) Military Accounts Department, and (3) The Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service. Shri Ranbir Chandra, respondent No. 6 Qualified in this examination and was appointed to the Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department on the 10th January, 1947 by a gazette notification dated 22nd February, 1947. He was also made to execute a contract of service which was to continue initially for three years and subsequently on like terms and conditions until terminated by three months notice. In 1950 the Government thought that the Emergency c^dre would have to be seen wound up and would not last beyond 31-3-1952. With a view to consider the then incumbents of the Emergency Cadre for absorption in some other Class I service, the Government constituted a Special Recruitment Board which interviewed them, including respondent No. 6, and placed them in three categories (a) those suitable for absorption in Class I Service, (b) those suitable for permanent appointment to posts of Income-tax Officers Class II and Ministry of Defence, and (c) those who were not suitable for either (a) or (b ). Respondent No. 6 was placed in category (b) for permanent appointment to a Class II post in the Income-tax Department. He says "he wanted to refuse this offer , but the Defence Accounts Department informed him in writing that persons like him would be retrenched with the winding up of the Emergency Cadre shortly. . . . Under these circumstances the peti- tioner had no other course but to accept this offer. " (vide paras 3 and 6 of his representations to Government dated 18-7-1967 and 8-10-1973 respectively ). He was appointed as Income-tax Officer, Class H, on 2-3-1951. According to the later finding of fact by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) even on 8-3-1951 the Government informed respondent No. 6 and officers like him that there was no guarantee than they would continue to be retained in the Emergency Cadre even up to 31-3-1952 and they were advised to be on the look out for offers of appointment either through Government sources or otherwise. On these facts respondent No. 6 takes the stand that he was forced by the Government to take such a decision (vide UPSC letter dated 22-9-1975 ).
( 3 ) REPRESENTATIONS BY RESPONDENT NO. 6: Right from October, 1951 and particularly in 1957, 1967 and 1974 respondent No. 6 made repeated representations to the Government pointing out that he was made to accept a Class II service on the representation that the Emergency Cadre would soon be wound up and the persons serving in it would have to find out jobs for themselves. Actually, persons who continued in the Cadre having been graded by the Special Recruitment Board below respondent No. 6 and as not fit for absorption either in Class I or Class II service were eventually absorbed permanently in Class I service because the Emergency Cadre continued till 1957 contrary to the representation made to Shri Ranbir Chandra in 1950 and 1951. These persons also got partial benefit of their previous service rendered in Class I Emergency Cadre. Respondent No. 6 complained in his representations that he did not get any benefit of Class I service rendered by him from 1947 to 1951 when he was appointed to Class II Income-tax Officers service. After his earlier representations were rejected summarily on technical grounds, the Government rejected his 1967 representation after consultation with the UPSC on the ground that "there is no question of comparison of service pr
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
