UNION OF INDIA Vs. M G DIGHE

JUDGEMENT

(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 December1, 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:

(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 Regulation5 (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.