1991 JTR(SC) 431
1992 BBCJ(SC) 28 ; 1991 63 FLR 534 ; 1992 JLJ 59 ; 1991 3 JT 547 ; 1992 1 LLN 50 ; 1992 1 PLJR(SC) 19 ; 1991 2 RSJ 617 ; 1991 2 Scale 446 ; 1991 4 SCC 551 ; 1991 SCC(L&S) 1353 ; 1991 3 SCR 776 ; 1991 3 SCT 85 ; 1991 3 SLJ 184 ; 1991 5 SLR 598 ; 1991 2 UPLBEC 1122 ; 1991 KHC 1171
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H.Kania : P.B.Sawant
Union Of India
Versus
M.G.Dighe
Case No. : 3383 of 1991
Date of Decision : 8/27/91
Advocates Appeared: Agnihotri S.K. : Ahmed Altaf : Banthia B.S. : Gambhir S.K. : Mathur Piyush : Prakash G. : Rao C.V.Subba : Sharma Hemant : Sharma T.C.
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, Regulation 5 (1), 5 (2) & 5 (3) - Selection Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.88 recommending the names of 30 officers of State Civil Service for promotion on 14 vacancies to the Commission-Commission asking for 12 more names in view of regulation 5 (1) - Committee again in its meeting held on 16.3.89 recommending further names and the select list was issued on 29/30.9.1989-counting of the period of 12 months - period of 12 months under Regulation 5 (1) had to be counted from March 16,1989 when the Committee can be said to have prepared the select list as required by Regulation-the bar under Regulation 5 (3) not to consider Cases of office of State Civil Service attaining 54 years of age-Provision is clear and it speaks of the first day of January "in which' the Selection Committee "meets '-as the Committee met first on 19.12.88 - it is the relevent date under Regulation 5 (3) and those members of State Civil Service will be ineligible who had attained age of 54 years on 1.1.1988 (Paras 3,6 & 7)
Altaf Ahmed, B.S.BANTHIA, C.V.SUBBA RAO, G.Prakash, HEMANT SHARMA, Piyush Mathur, S.K.AGNIHOTRI, S.K.Gambhir, T.C.SHARMA
JUDGMENT
P.B.SAWANT, J.
(1) WHAT falls for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of clauses (1, (2 and (3 of Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulations]. Respondent 1 and five Others who were members of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Service had approached the central Administrative tribunal [Tribunal for brevity] with a grievance that the selection of officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on December 19, 1988 and on 16/03/1989 was illegal.
(2) IN its meeting on 19/12/1988, the Selection Committee had estimated 7 vacancies in the INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE cadre and was, therefore, required to prepare a select list of 14 members of the State Civil Service for promotion to the IAS, under Regulation 5(1 of the Regulations. While preparing the list, the Committee had to consider for inclusion in the said list the cases of members of the State Civil Service (in the order of their seniority) equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the list. Hence the Committee had to consider the cases of 42 members of the Service. The Committee, however, considered the cases only of 30 officers, graded them and submitted its recommendation to the Union public service commission. The Commission directed the Committee to meet again and grade the remaining 12 officers also. Accordingly, the Committee met again on 16/03/1989 to complete the select list as directed. As a result of this selection, appointment orders of 14 officers who were included in the select list were issued on March 29/30, 1989. This was challenged by the applicants before the tribunal by pointing out that the State had wrongly calculated the number of vacancies as 7 by counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 5(1, from December 1, 198 8/11/1989 instead of from 16/03/1989 to Mar 15/03/1990. If the latter period was considered as the proper period for the purposes of the said regulation, the vacancies would be 11 and the select list of 22 officers would have to be prepared. That will extend the zone of consideration in all to 66 officers. Since 18 of the 66 officers were ineligible, the zone of consideration will extend to the 84th officer in the seniority list. On behalf of the State government, it was contended that since the meeting was first held on 19/12/1988 the period of 12 months under the said regulation will have to be calculated from December 1, 198 8/11/1989 according to the previous practice of the State government, which was that since the Committee meets in the second fortnight of December, the period was to be calculated from December I of that year. We agree with the tribunal that neither the practice adopted by the State government nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation 5(1 is proper. The relevant portion of Regulation 5(1 reads as follows:
"5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers.(1 ... The number of members of the State Civil Service included in the list shall not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of the list, in the posts available for them ...."
(3) WE are not concerned with the rest of the provision of the said regulation for the purposes of this point. The wording of the regulation is very clear. It says "commencing from the date of the preparation of the list". In the present case, admittedly the list which was prepared by the Selection Committee on 19/12/1988 was not according to Regulation 5(1 read with Regulation 5(2. Regulation 5(2 requires that the cases of members of the State Civil Service which are required to be considered for preparation of the select list have to be in number equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the select list. As pointed out earlier, the Selection Committee had on the basis of its estimate of vacancies on 19/12/1988 considered the cases of only 30 officers when it was required to consider the cases of 42 officers. It is for this reason that the Union public service commission had returned its recommendation and asked the Selection Committee to consider the cases of 12 more officers. Hence the preparation of the select list was not complete in December 1988 and the Committee was required to convene a fresh meeting on 16/03/1989 on which date alone it can be said to have prepared the select list as required under Regulation 5(1. Since the select list, as required by Regulation 5(1, was for the first time prepared on 16/03/1989, the period of 12 months under Regulation 5(1 had to be counted from that date. The tribunal had, therefore, rightly held that the span of 12 months would begin from 16/03/1989 and end on 15/03/1990.
(4) THERE is further no dispute that during the period of 12 months from 16/03/1989 to Mar 15/03/1990, the estimated vacancies were 11 and, therefore, the tribunals direction to prepare a select list of 22 officers by considering the cases in all of 66 officers and, therefore, extending the zone to the 84th officer in the seniority list according to the order of seniority (18 officers out of 66 being ineligible), is both proper and valid.
(5) A contention was then advanced before us on behalf of the appellant that the select list lapses when a meeting of the Selection Committee to prepare a fresh select list is held. Hence no appointment could be made from the earlier select list on and after the date of the meeting of the next Selection Committee. There is nothing on record as to whether any Selection Committee met after 16/03/1989. In fact, the tribunals direction to constitute a Review Committee to consider the cases of the applicants before it and any other officers who were in the consideration zone, has not yet been implemented and the Selection Committee has yet to meet to prepare the list of members of the State Civil Service eligible to be placed in the select list as on 16/03/1989. There is, therefore, no question of the lapse of the list which is yet to be prepared. A meeting of the Selection Committee to prepare the list for future years cannot be held unless the meeting as directed by the tribunal is first held and the select list finalised.
(6) THE last contention was that under Regulation 5(3, there is a bar on the Selection Committee taking into consideration the cases of the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets. The argument was that some of the officers had attained the age of 54 years on 1/01/1989 and, therefore, would be ineligible for consideration to be placed in the select list. According to us, this contention is inconsistent with the provisions of Regulation 5(3 of the Regulations. Regulation 5(3 reads as follows:
"5.(3 The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets:"
(7) THE provision of Regulation 5(3 is clear. It speaks of the first day of January of the year "in which", the Selection Committee "meets". It is unlike the language of Regulation 5(1 which, as pointed out earlier, speaks of "the date of the preparation of the list". In the present case, admittedly the Committee first met on 19/12/1988. Therefore, for the purpose of Regulation 5(3, it is that date which is relevant and if that is so, it is only those members of the State Civil Service who will be ineligible who had attained the age of 54 years on 1/01/1988. The tribunal has also clarified this while giving the direction for a Review Selection Committee.
(8) WE make it clear that for the purposes of the Review Selection Committee to be convened as directed by the tribunal the zone of consideration will be as if the meeting was held on 16/03/1989. The actual number of vacancies which will have to be considered has already been indicated in our judgment.
(9) IN the circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending for some time, we direct that the Review Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee should meet and prepare the select list within two months from the day of the receipt of the writ of this court.
(10) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.