NDLI: R.s Dass Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Natural Justice Civil Service
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 14 and 16-Members of State Civil Service (Executive)-Promotion to Indian Administrative Service-Selection-Merit sole ,basis-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a Government servant for promotion-Whether such right protected by Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers considered on merit in an objective manner-Non-selection of seniors--Whether amounts to supersession-Whether Selection Committee required to record reasons for non-selection of seniors-Whether non-recording of reasons under amended Regulation 5(4) and (5) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 violative of Arts. 14 and 16. Natural Justice-Civil Service-Promotion-Selection on Merit alone-Eligible officers considered on merit in an objective manner Seniors not selected-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a Government Servant-Whether opportunity required to be given to the superseded officer for making representation-Rules of natural justice-- Application of-Depends upon the setting and the background of statutory provisions, nature of the right affected and the consequences which may entail. Civil Service-Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 Regulations 3, 5(4), (5) & (7), 6 and 8. and Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954---Rules 4 and 8(i}-Members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive)- Promotion to Indian Administrative Service-Selection-Merit alone to be considered-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a Government Servant for Promotion-Whether such right protected by Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers to be considered in an objective manner-Non-selection of seniors-Whether amounts to supersession-Whether Selection Committee/State Government required to give reasons for non-selection of seniors- Non-recording of reasons for supersession- Select List-Validity of-Whether Promotion Regulations 3, 5 and 7 ultra vires Recruitment Rule 8(1).Services-Categorisation of eligible officers as 'Outstanding'; 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Unfit' for purposes of Promotion-Basis of categorisation should be objective and not merely subjective evaluation-Service record-Character roll entries-Importance of. Administrative action-Power-Vested in a high authority-Whether sufficient safeguard against arbitrariness and misuse of power-Presumption-Whether power would be exercised reasonably-Judicial.review-Scope- of Delay in forwarding comments to Public Service Commission by State Government-Whether constitutes malafides. The Central Government under s. 3 of the All India Services Act, C 1951 framed Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. According to Rule 4 recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service is made by: (i) direct recruitment through competitive examination; (ii) promotion of substantive members of the State Civil Service (Executive) and (iii) selection from amongst persons holding posts in substantive capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, who may not be members of the State Civil Service. Under Rule 8(1) the Central Government framed the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 laying down procedure for selection for appointment to the service by promotion. Regulation 3 provides for the Constitution of a Selection Committee. Regulation 5 provides that the Committee shall prepare the list of such members of the State Civil E Service found suitable for promotion to the service on an over all relative assessments of the service. The State Government shall forward this list to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records of the selected members as well as of those proposed to be superseded together with the Observations Of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee for consideration of the Union Public Service Commission and the list so approved shall form the Select List of the members of State Civil Service and shall be in force until a fresh list is prepared and approved for the subsequent year. Regulation 8 lays down that the appointment shall be made by the Central Government on the recommendations of the State Government in the order in which the names of members of the State Civil Service appear in the Select List. In the process of preparing the Select List if the seniors are not found suitable for promotion and their names in the Select List are not included and, if junior officers are found suitable for the inclusion of the names in the Select List, the seniors stand superseded, as the selection is made on merit and not on the basis of seniority. Three members of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive) filed separate petitions under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the Select List of 1978 for promotion to the I.A.S. alleging: (i) that they were eligible for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, but their names were not included in the Select List while names of officers Junior to them were included, thereby superseding them in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons; (ii) that the mandatory 8 provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were violated as the service records of eligible State Officers including the petitioners bad not been forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission; (iii) that amendment made in Regulation 5 deleting the provision which required reasons to be recorded for the supersession of a State Officer, · was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; (iv) that the Regulations were ultra vires being inconsistent with the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; (v) that one officer bad earned adverse remarks and yet be was selected; (vi) that important material relating to the petitioners' service including certificate and letters of recommendations were not considered by the Selection Committee. A Division Bench of the High Court by a Common Judgement in Baldev Kapoor's case [(1980) 2 SLR 309] dismissed all the petitions holding that the Select List prepared for the year 1978 did not suffer from any legal infirmity. During the pendency of these petitions Select List for the year 1979 was also prepared and the name of one of the petitioners was not included in that list also. Another writ petition challenging that Select List was also filed on the same grounds and dismissed. In similar Writ Petitions, the Full Bench of the High Court to whom the matter was referred for consideration on the question as to whether the Select List of 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as reasons for supersession of senior officers were not forwarded to the Commission, held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Chothia's case [1978) 3 SCR 652] did not affect the position and the Division Bench's decision in Baldev Kapoor's case (supra) correctly laid down the law. Appeals were filed in this Court and during their pendency 15 other officers filed petitions-under Art. 32 challenging the validity of Select Lists for the years 1979 and 1980. Some other officers filed similar petitions challenging the validity of Select Lists prepared for the year 1983. Select Lists for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 were D E F G challenged almost on similar grounds.In the present appeals and petitions, on behalf of the appellants and petitioners it was contended: (1) that the Select Lists of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 were vitiated as the Selection Committee did not record any reasons in superseding the appellants/petitioners while excluding their names and including the names of junior officers in the Select Lists; (2) that the amendment of the Regulation 5(7) was violative of Articles 14 and 16 as it conferred unguided power on the Selection Committee to supersede senior officers; (3) that the Select List prepared for the year 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) as reasons recorded by the Selection Committee were not forwarded by the State Government to the Commission along with record of officers proposed to be superseded; (4) that even if under the Regulations no reasons were necessary to be recorded, principles of Natural Justice and fair play required that reasons should have been recorded; (5) that the Select Lists prepared for the years 1978 and 1979 were vitiated on account of unauthorised participation of Shri I.C. Puri as a Member of the Selection Committee; (6) that the Regulation 3 and 5 of the Promotion Regulations were violative of Rule 8( 1) of the Recruitment Rules inasmuch as the Promotion Regulations impinge upon the State Government's power to make recommendations for appointment to the service; (7) that the State Government deliberately delayed its comments on the Select List prepared for 1980 to the Public Service Commission with a view to give undue advantage to the officers included in the 1979 list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee
Neutral Citation	1986 INSC 266
Petitioner	R.s Dass Etc. Etc.
Respondent	Union Of India & Ors.
SCR	[1987] 1 S.C.R. 527
Judgement Date	1986-12-11
Case Number	4270

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

R.s Dass Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Baleshwar Dass & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors. Etc.

Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma Etc Vs. Union of India & Ors Etc

Sh. O.k. Udayasankaran and Ors. Etc Vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

N. Subba Rao Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others

Union of India and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Pratap Narain and Ors. Etc. Etc.

A.k. Subraman & Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Etc Vs. Tejram Parashramjj Bombhate and Ors. Etc

Union of India and Ors. Vs. M. Ravi Varma and Ors. Etc.

R.s Dass Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

R.s Dass Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Baleshwar Dass & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors. Etc.

Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma Etc Vs. Union of India & Ors Etc

Sh. O.k. Udayasankaran and Ors. Etc Vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

N. Subba Rao Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others

Union of India and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Pratap Narain and Ors. Etc. Etc.

A.k. Subraman & Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Etc Vs. Tejram Parashramjj Bombhate and Ors. Etc

Union of India and Ors. Vs. M. Ravi Varma and Ors. Etc.

R.s Dass Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.