NDLI: Gudur Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Sutirtha Bhattacharya and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Service Law : Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954: Rules 8 and 9.
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	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Service Law :Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954: Rules 8 and 9. All India Services-Ceiling-Supernumerary posts-Adding or Change in ceiling-Effect of-Validity-State Civil Service Officers-Promotion to IAS-Ceiling of 33-1/3% laid down in R.9(1)-14 supernumerary posts created by issuing notification to accommodate State Civil Service Officers who were illegally kept out of promotion to the IAS-These posts added to Item 3 of the Schedule to the Cadre Strength Regulations-However, no corresponding increase made against Items 1 and 2-Held: Any Regulation merely increasing the number of posts in Item 3 without corresponding increase of Items 1 and 2 is violative of the ceiling of 33-1/3% and also the mandate of the Cadre Strength Regulation itself-Hence, the said ceiling cannot be exceeded by creation of supernumerary posts against Item 3-Therefore, the said notification declared invalid-Consequently, another notification promoting the State Civil Service Officers against the supernumerary posts also declared invalid-IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, R.4(1)-/AS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, Sch. Items 1 to 3.Service Rules and Regulations-Interpretation of-Harmonious I construction-Held: Court would attempt to make a harmonious construction of different sets of rules and regulations to try to save them-But if they cannot be saved in any manner they would struck down-Interpretation of Statutes. Appointment and Promotion-Notifications created supernumerary posts and promotions of State Civil Service Officers to the IAS-Validity of-Held: Most of the promotee officers might have superannuated in the meantime-Therefore, promotions already made need not be disturbed-However, officers promoted in excess of ceiling limit allowed to continue and adjusted in subsequent years -But such continuance will not confer on them the benefit of seniority and the year of allotment-Aforesaid directions issued with a view to doing "complete justice between the parties. "-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142.All India Service-Condition-Scheme and History of-Stated and explained-All India Services Act, 1951-All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960--Indian Civil Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1950--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 312(1). The appellants were promottee officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) who were initially appointed as Deputy Collectors in the State Civil Service. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel issued a Notification dated 15-12-1993 creating 14 supernumerary posts in the IAS to accommodate the appellants who were illegally kept out of promotion to the IAS for the year 1987. These 14 supernumerary posts were added by amending Item 3 in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. By another Notification dated 16-12- 1993 the Government of India appointed the appellants to the IAS. The respondents, who were direct recruit IAS officers, challenged the said two Notifications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the two Notifications on the ground that these contravened Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Hence this appeal.On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Notification dated 15-12-1993 was a rule made under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1955 and could not be struck down on the ground that it contravened Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules; and that since the Recruitment Rules and the Notifications were made under Section 3(1) of the Act both must be harmonised.On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules prescribed a ceiling of 33-1/3/% of the number of posts shown against Items 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the Regulations and therefore, the Notification dated 15-12-1993 violated Rule 9(1) since it did not make a corresponding increase against Items 1 and 2.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 110
Petitioner	Gudur Kishan Rao And Ors.
Respondent	Sutirtha Bhattacharya And Ors.
SCR	[1998] 1 S.C.R. 1053
Judgement Date	1998-02-23
Case Number	6525

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

Gudur Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Sutirtha Bhattacharya and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

P.m. Bayas Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Baidyanath Yadav Vs. Aditya Narayan Roy & Ors.

Lt. Cdr. M. Ramesh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. E Krishna Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Union of India and Ors Vs. Sh. Rajiv Yadav, Ias and Ors.

R. P. Khanna & Ors. Vs. S.a.f. Abbas & Ors. Etc.

Satya Narain Shukla Vs. Union of Lndia & Ors.

Indian Administrative Service (s.c.s.) Association, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Etc. Vs. G.n. Tiwari, K.l. Jain & Ors.

Gudur Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Sutirtha Bhattacharya and Ors.

Gudur Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Sutirtha Bhattacharya and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

P.m. Bayas Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Baidyanath Yadav Vs. Aditya Narayan Roy & Ors.

Lt. Cdr. M. Ramesh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. E Krishna Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Union of India and Ors Vs. Sh. Rajiv Yadav, Ias and Ors.

R. P. Khanna & Ors. Vs. S.a.f. Abbas & Ors. Etc.

Satya Narain Shukla Vs. Union of Lndia & Ors.

Indian Administrative Service (s.c.s.) Association, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Etc. Vs. G.n. Tiwari, K.l. Jain & Ors.

Gudur Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Sutirtha Bhattacharya and Ors.