Parmeshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 213 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 213 of 1997)
Petitioner: Parmeshwar Prasad
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 213 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 213 of 1997)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 30, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Senior Advocate, Mr.Anil Kumar, Mr. S.Ali Khan and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. N.N. Goswami, Senior Advocate, Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Mr. B.B. Singh and Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Advocates with him for the Re-spondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956
Regulation 3(1) with I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-tions, 1955 – Non-state civil service officers – Appointment to I.A.S. – Selection method – Name recommended in November, 1994 and December, 1996 – No meeting in years 1994-95 and also in 1995-96 – Name not considered as on 1.4.96, candidate was above 54 years – Lapses on part of state scrutiny committee. Held that decision of tribunal in not allowing application of the appellant was in accordance with regulations, which interdict the state government from considering cases of persons above 54 years. Sant Ram’s and T. Sham Bhatt’s cases, held, not applicable (distin-guished).
Held:
So far as I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 is concerned, clause (1) of regulation 3 only envisages that the state government may, from time to time, consider by way of selection the cases of persons not belonging to the state civil service but serving in connection with the affairs of the state. The provisions contained therein also interdict the state govern-ment from considering cases of persons, who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year in which the cases of the persons are considered and consequently, no claims can be asserted in derogation of such stipulation. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the factual details disclosed show and that there is no controversy over the same, that the vacancies being only two, the number of officers proposed for the consider-ation of the selection committee by the state government shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies and that as a matter of fact, ten eligible persons under the said category have been proposed by the state government. The omission or lapse, if any, on the part of the state scrutiny committee, which is meant to short-list the candidates proposed by the heads of various de-partments of the government, is purely an internal working ar-rangement and such a selection cannot be equated to consideration and selection by the select committee envisaged under the regula-tions. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (JT 1996 (9) SC 686) (Para 3)
2. T. Sham Bhat v. Union of India & Anr. (JT 1994 (5) SC 165) (Para 3)
3. Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors, etc. (JT 1993 Suppl. SC 169) (Para 3)
4. Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1910) (Para 3)
2. T. Sham Bhat v. Union of India & Anr. (JT 1994 (5) SC 165) (Para 3)
3. Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors, etc. (JT 1993 Suppl. SC 169) (Para 3)
4. Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1910) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJU, J.
1. The appellant, who joined the Bihar statistical service in a class II gazetted post on 22.8.1968, was promoted to class-I post in July, 1992 and again in July, 1994 he was given the senior selection grade. His name was said to have been recommended on 15.11.1994 for appointment by selection to the I.A.S. by his parent department. But since no meeting of the state committee for short-listing of candidates took place for the year, 1994-95 and 1995-96 for officers of the said category, the proposal by his parent department did not materialize. On 12.12.1996, it appears that the name of the appellant was again recommended by his parent department for being considered for appointment by selection to the post of I.A.S. The state scrutiny committee, whose task is to short-list the names of such candidates received from various departments of the government other than the state civil service for further consideration by the select committee as per the regulations, seems to have not favourably considered the claim of the appellant since he was above 54 years as on 1.4.1996, i.e., the relevant cut-off date for consideration of claims for the year 1996-97. Apparently, on coming to know that he was not one of the persons called for interview while others had been, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribun-al, Patna bench at Patna, by filing O.A. No. 213 of 1997. In the said application, interim orders of stay appear to have been obtained also, which came to be ultimately vacated by the tribun-al on 18.9.1997 on being brought to its notice that the appellant was over aged as on 1.4.1996. The High Court also declined to interfere at its instance at that stage, in CWJC No. 9334 of 1997.
2. The main OA No.213 of 1997 itself was subsequently taken up for consideration and by an order dated 14.9.1998, the same came to be dismissed rejecting the plea of the appellant for a differ-ent cut-off date and that so far as his claim was concerned, it could be anything other than 1.4.1996 for the reason that there was no meeting of the scrutiny committee held for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 at the state level in respect of appointment to I.A.S. through selection method. The tribunal has meticulously analysed the difference between the consideration of claims of state civil service officers as envisaged under I.A.S. (Appoint-ment by Promotion), Regulations, 1955 on the one hand and I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 on the other, by highlighting the fact that unlike the statutory obligation to have an annual selection for appointment by promotion, no such duty was cast under the regulations, for obvious reasons, for such annual consideration in respect of appointment by selection method. Not satisfied, the appellant has come before this Court.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel on either side. Shri A. Sharan appearing for the appellant sought to draw inspiration based on proviso to regulation 5(3) of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and also the decisions reported in Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (JT 1996 (9) SC 686 = 1996 (6) SCC 721), Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors, etc. (JT 1993 Suppl. SC 169 = 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575), T. Sham Bhat v. Union of India & Anr. (JT 1994 (5) SC 165 = 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 340) and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1910) to project the claim of the appellant besides placing strong reliance upon the circular dated 18.10.1996 issued by the government of Bihar and the letter dated 19.9.1996 of the Union Public Service Commission. Per contra, Shri N.N. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the Union of India and Shri B.B.Singh learned counsel for the State of Bihar, adopt-ed the reasoning of the tribunal and submitted that the decision of the tribunal calls for no interference since they are quite in accordance with the regulations and the procedure governing the selection for appointment by selection method from the category of non-state civil service officers.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. In our view, the reasons assigned by the tribunal below accord with the relevant rules and regula-tions governing the selection for appointment of non-state civil service officers by selection method. The reliance placed on the decision reported in Sant Ram Sharma (supra) is inappropriate for the reasons that the circulars issued by the government of Bihar cannot be considered as those which could fill up even the as-sumed gaps, though, in our view, there is none such, for the simple reason that it is only the authority which had the compet-ency to make the rules or regulations that could said to have even such powers. The communication of the Union Public Service Commission, noticed above,also does not lend any support to the claim of the appellant. The decision of this Court in T. Sham Bhat (supra) has no relevance whatsoever to the issue raised before us; nor could the reasons, which weighed with this Court in arriving at the decision therein, be stretched to the extent of obliterating all differences and distinctions specifically envisaged in the respective regulations providing for different manner or procedure of consideration in respect of appointment by promotion of state civil service officers and appointment by selection of non-state civil service officers.The decision in Syed Khalid Rizvi (supra) as well as the one reported in Vi-pinchandra Hiralal Shah (supra) related to appointment by promo-tion of state civil service officers and they cannot be of any assistance for considering the claims and rights of the appellant under the I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations. This Court in explaining the meaning of the word “ordinarily” in regulation 5 of I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations had come to the particular conclusion having regard to the mandate contained in clause (1) of regulation 5 that the selection com-mittee shall ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the state civil service, as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the service. So far as I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 is concerned, clause (1) of regulation 3 only envisages that the state government may, from time to time, consider by way of selection the cases of persons not belonging to the state civil service but serving in connection with the affairs of the state. The provisions contained therein also interdict the state govern-ment from considering cases of persons, who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year in which the cases of the persons are considered and consequently, no claims can be asserted in derogation of such stipulation. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the factual details disclosed show and that there is no controversy over the same, that the vacancies being only two, the number of officers proposed for the consider-ation of the selection committee by the state government shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies and that as a matter of fact, ten eligible persons under the said category have been proposed by the state government. The omission or lapse, if any, on the part of the state scrutiny committee, which is meant to short-list the candidates proposed by the heads of various de-partments of the government, is purely an internal working ar-rangement and such a selection cannot be equated to consideration and selection by the select committee envisaged under the regula-tions. Consequently, we see no infirmity whatsoever in the find-ings of the tribunal in non-suiting the appellant, so as to call for our interference.
5. The appeal, therefore, fails and will stand dismissed. No costs.
1. The appellant, who joined the Bihar statistical service in a class II gazetted post on 22.8.1968, was promoted to class-I post in July, 1992 and again in July, 1994 he was given the senior selection grade. His name was said to have been recommended on 15.11.1994 for appointment by selection to the I.A.S. by his parent department. But since no meeting of the state committee for short-listing of candidates took place for the year, 1994-95 and 1995-96 for officers of the said category, the proposal by his parent department did not materialize. On 12.12.1996, it appears that the name of the appellant was again recommended by his parent department for being considered for appointment by selection to the post of I.A.S. The state scrutiny committee, whose task is to short-list the names of such candidates received from various departments of the government other than the state civil service for further consideration by the select committee as per the regulations, seems to have not favourably considered the claim of the appellant since he was above 54 years as on 1.4.1996, i.e., the relevant cut-off date for consideration of claims for the year 1996-97. Apparently, on coming to know that he was not one of the persons called for interview while others had been, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribun-al, Patna bench at Patna, by filing O.A. No. 213 of 1997. In the said application, interim orders of stay appear to have been obtained also, which came to be ultimately vacated by the tribun-al on 18.9.1997 on being brought to its notice that the appellant was over aged as on 1.4.1996. The High Court also declined to interfere at its instance at that stage, in CWJC No. 9334 of 1997.
2. The main OA No.213 of 1997 itself was subsequently taken up for consideration and by an order dated 14.9.1998, the same came to be dismissed rejecting the plea of the appellant for a differ-ent cut-off date and that so far as his claim was concerned, it could be anything other than 1.4.1996 for the reason that there was no meeting of the scrutiny committee held for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 at the state level in respect of appointment to I.A.S. through selection method. The tribunal has meticulously analysed the difference between the consideration of claims of state civil service officers as envisaged under I.A.S. (Appoint-ment by Promotion), Regulations, 1955 on the one hand and I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 on the other, by highlighting the fact that unlike the statutory obligation to have an annual selection for appointment by promotion, no such duty was cast under the regulations, for obvious reasons, for such annual consideration in respect of appointment by selection method. Not satisfied, the appellant has come before this Court.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel on either side. Shri A. Sharan appearing for the appellant sought to draw inspiration based on proviso to regulation 5(3) of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and also the decisions reported in Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (JT 1996 (9) SC 686 = 1996 (6) SCC 721), Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors, etc. (JT 1993 Suppl. SC 169 = 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575), T. Sham Bhat v. Union of India & Anr. (JT 1994 (5) SC 165 = 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 340) and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1910) to project the claim of the appellant besides placing strong reliance upon the circular dated 18.10.1996 issued by the government of Bihar and the letter dated 19.9.1996 of the Union Public Service Commission. Per contra, Shri N.N. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the Union of India and Shri B.B.Singh learned counsel for the State of Bihar, adopt-ed the reasoning of the tribunal and submitted that the decision of the tribunal calls for no interference since they are quite in accordance with the regulations and the procedure governing the selection for appointment by selection method from the category of non-state civil service officers.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. In our view, the reasons assigned by the tribunal below accord with the relevant rules and regula-tions governing the selection for appointment of non-state civil service officers by selection method. The reliance placed on the decision reported in Sant Ram Sharma (supra) is inappropriate for the reasons that the circulars issued by the government of Bihar cannot be considered as those which could fill up even the as-sumed gaps, though, in our view, there is none such, for the simple reason that it is only the authority which had the compet-ency to make the rules or regulations that could said to have even such powers. The communication of the Union Public Service Commission, noticed above,also does not lend any support to the claim of the appellant. The decision of this Court in T. Sham Bhat (supra) has no relevance whatsoever to the issue raised before us; nor could the reasons, which weighed with this Court in arriving at the decision therein, be stretched to the extent of obliterating all differences and distinctions specifically envisaged in the respective regulations providing for different manner or procedure of consideration in respect of appointment by promotion of state civil service officers and appointment by selection of non-state civil service officers.The decision in Syed Khalid Rizvi (supra) as well as the one reported in Vi-pinchandra Hiralal Shah (supra) related to appointment by promo-tion of state civil service officers and they cannot be of any assistance for considering the claims and rights of the appellant under the I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations. This Court in explaining the meaning of the word “ordinarily” in regulation 5 of I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations had come to the particular conclusion having regard to the mandate contained in clause (1) of regulation 5 that the selection com-mittee shall ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the state civil service, as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the service. So far as I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 is concerned, clause (1) of regulation 3 only envisages that the state government may, from time to time, consider by way of selection the cases of persons not belonging to the state civil service but serving in connection with the affairs of the state. The provisions contained therein also interdict the state govern-ment from considering cases of persons, who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year in which the cases of the persons are considered and consequently, no claims can be asserted in derogation of such stipulation. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the factual details disclosed show and that there is no controversy over the same, that the vacancies being only two, the number of officers proposed for the consider-ation of the selection committee by the state government shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies and that as a matter of fact, ten eligible persons under the said category have been proposed by the state government. The omission or lapse, if any, on the part of the state scrutiny committee, which is meant to short-list the candidates proposed by the heads of various de-partments of the government, is purely an internal working ar-rangement and such a selection cannot be equated to consideration and selection by the select committee envisaged under the regula-tions. Consequently, we see no infirmity whatsoever in the find-ings of the tribunal in non-suiting the appellant, so as to call for our interference.
5. The appeal, therefore, fails and will stand dismissed. No costs.
