PETITIONER:
SURJIT SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P.WADHWA.
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 1997 Present:
Hon‘ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon‘ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa P.P.Rao, Sr.Adv., A.Mariarputham, Ms.Aruna, Advs., with him fro M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. Advs. for the appellants. V.C.. Mahajan, Sr.Adv., Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Ms.Anil Katiyar, Dr.D.C.Vohra, Arun K.Sinha, Advs. with hin for the Respondents The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The never-ending dispute between the direct recruits and the promotees has again surfaced in these appeals. The year 1962 onwards, the Central Secretariat Service Rules (for short, the ‘Rules’) framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India provided a ratio of 1/5th and 5/6th between the direct recruits and the promotees. On July 1, 1982, the ratio was changed to 1/5th and 4/5th between the direct recruits and the promotees respectively. In the year 1983, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the promotee officers titled H.N. Hardasani & Ors. vs. Union of Indian & Ors., This Court had directed that the unfilled vacancies meant for the direct recruits might be carried forward for being filled up by the promotees. A statutory shape was given to the said direction by amending the Rules. In these cases, we are concerned with the Section Officer in the Central Secretariat. Whin fresh seniority list was being prepared, another writ petition came to be filed titled Amrit Lal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., This Court directed therein preparation of the seniority lest in the light of the direction given by this Court which stood transformed into Amended Rules. Consequently, a seniority list had been prepared giving due placement to the direct recruits and the promotees in accordance with the rota and quota as operating under the Rules. Again, a third round of litigation had been started by filling of an Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal. 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 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, 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. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
In is seen that Rule 13(1) of the Rules dealing with recruitment of Section Officers of the Central Secretariat, reads as under:
"One-sixth of the substantive
vacancies in the Section Officers’
Grade in any cadre shall be filled
by direct recruitment on the
results of the competitive
examinations held by the Commission
for this purpose from time to time.
The remaining vacancies shall be
filled by the filled by the
substantive appointment of persons
included in the Select List for the
Section Officers’ Grade in that
cadre. Such Appointments shall be
made in the order of seniority in
the Select List except when for
reasons to be recorded in writing,
a person is not considered fit for
such appointment in his turn."
A reading of this rule would clearly indicate that onesixth/one-fifth, as per subsequently amended Rules of the substantive vacancies (posts) in the Section Officers’ grade in any cadre shall be filled by direct recruitment on the results of the competitive examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission for this purpose from time to time. In other words, the rule is imperative and unequivocal that one-sixth/one-fifth vacancies meant for direct recruitment shall be filled only by direct recruitment after due recruitment is made by direct recruitment after due recruitment is made by the UPSC and appointments made by Government form time to time. The unfilled spilled over vacancies shall be filed up with the promoteed from the select list. It must be for two years from the last recruitment year. Consequent upon the directions issued by this Court, the rule came to be amended and the two years’ limitation was introduced which reads thus;
"G.S.R.21 In exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to article
309 of the Constitution, the
President hereby makes the
following rules further to amend
the Central Secratariat Rules,
1962, namely:
1.(1)These rules may called the
Central Secretariat Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 1984.
(2)They shall come into force on
1st July, 1985.
2. In the Central Secretariat
Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter
referred to as the said rules) in
rule 12, in sub-rule (2) for the
third proviso, the following shall
be substituted, namely:-
"Provided further that if any
person appointed to the Section
Officers. Grade is considered for
promotion to grade I under this
sub-rule, all persons senior to him
in the Section Officers’ Grade,
belonging to the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes, who have
rendered not less than four years’
approved service in that Grade,
shall also be considered for
promotion"
3. In rule 1 of the said rules,-
(i) after sub-rule (1), the
following proviso shall be inserted
namely:-
Provided that the number of the
vacancies to be filled by the
substantive appointment of persons
included in Select List for the
Section Officers’ Grade is 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 that
year.
Provided further that if sufficient
number of candidates are not
Available for filling up the
vacancies in cadre in any year,
either by direct recruitment or by
appointment of persons included in
the select list for Section
Officers, Grade, 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, if any,
still remaining unfilled, belonging
to one mode of recruitment, shall
be transferred as additional
vacancies for the other made of
recruitment".
(ii) in sub-rule (2), for the first
proviso, the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
"Provided that if any person
appointed to the Assistants’ Grade
is considered for promotion to the
Section Officers’ Grade in any
cadre under this rule, all persons
senior to him in the Assistants’
Grade in that cadre and belonging
to the Scheduled Castes."
A reading thereof would indicate that the number of the vacancies to be filled 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, 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 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 Officers’ grade, i.e. by promotion the unfilled vacancies shall also be carried forward for nat mare 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 other 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. In that view of the matter, this Court held in Amrit Lal’s case as under:
"In spite of the decisions of this
Court referred to above, some of
the promotee officers in this cadre
went before the Central
Administrative Tribunal raising a
fresh dispute on what may be said
to be a covered field. The tribunal
had the handicap of a binding
judgment in the field; yet on the
basis of materials placed before
it, it came to conclusions placed
before it, it come to conclusions
partly different from what had been
reached by this Court and; rendered
a judgment which is impugned before
us in this group of case. We have
heard parties at considerable
length in the month of January this
year and thereafter when we were
satisfied that the representation
made to this Court on the earlier
occasion that there existing a
seniority list was perhes** not
correct, we called upon the Union
of India to draw up such a list and
for that purpose we adjourned the
proceedings for a considerable
period of time, it is not disputed
that with the assistance of both
the sides such a list has now been
drawn up.
We have again heard counsel
appearing on the two sides and even
allowed oral arguments to be
addressed by an intervener in
person. This Court has repeatedly
noticed the fact that public
officers are more in Court than
public offices, With a view to
doing complete justice to the
matter and being assured by counsel
on either and the representatives
who have filled our Court hall that
if a seal be given to this
litigation, our expectation that
Government business shall now be
carried on and not litigation
hereafter, we have agreed to make
this further order providing
certain guidelines for
updating/modifying the list which
was drawn up as referred to above.
We are of the opinion that with a
view to doing complete justice to
the situation, the December 1984
Rules should be made operative from
1.7. 1984 instead of 1.7.1985.
These Rules have now a limited
provision of carry forward of
vacancies to be filled up by direct
recruits and that is a two year
period. The entitlement to
substantive recruitment to
substantive recruitment to the
cadre is on an eight year period of
qualifying service. Entitlement as
qualified officers in the field is
one matter and recruitment into the
cadre on substantive basis is
another. It may be noted that 20%
is reserved for the direct recruits
and the remainder is available to
the promotees.
We do not consider it apropriate to
dispose of the matter now and leave
the litigant again to come in some
form. Therefore, we adjourn these
proceedings by two months and
require the Union Government to
update/modify the list scrupulously
following every provision of the
relevant rules and the regulations
and place the list for
consideration of the Court on the
adjourned date. A copy of the list
as prepared may be served on the
counsel for either side a week in
advance so that they would be in a
position to make their
representations on that date."
In the light of these directions, it is obvious that the Government of India had prepared the seniority list. 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 circumstance, the view respective cadres. Under these circumstances, the view of the Tribunal is clearly illegal; unfortunately, Tribunal has wrongly stated that if they commit mistake, it is for this Court to correct the same. That view of the Tribunal is not conductive to the proper functioning of judicial service. When a patent error is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct, with grace, its mistake of law by way of review of the its order/directions.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. As a result, the seniority list prepared by the Central Government needs to be redone as per the law now declared. No costs.