SHAMBHU DAYAL GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J. dated 8th April, 1864, arises in the following circumstances. The appellant was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur, on 10th January, 1959. A Committee constituted under regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, (hereafter referred to as the Regulations) in its meeting held on 13th, 14th and 15th January, 1959, recommended the names of seventeen officers of the State Civil Service for inclusion in the Select List, as contemplated by regulation 5 of the Regulations. The name of the appellant was, according to him, placed at No. 9 in the said list. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain in the reply affidavit that the appellant's name was the thirteenth in the said list, but nothing really turns on that controversy. The Select List as proposed by the Committee was approved by the Union Public Service Commission under regulation 7 of the Regulations on 27th February, 1959, and the said List formed the "Select List" of the members of the State Civil Service for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. As a consequence thereof, the appellant was appointed as an officiating Collector in October, 1959. In the following year, another list was prepared by the said Comittee and four officers, namely, Messrs Champalal Kochar. Mathura Nath Pancholy, Hanuman Sahai Rawat and Randhir Singh were placed above the appellant. It is not disputed that the said four officers were senior to the appellant in the State Civil Service. They had, however, not been brought on the Select List in the year 1959. In the second list, the name of the appellant was brought below the names of the said four officers, apparently on the ground that the four new officers, who had been included, were senior to the appellant in the State Civil Service. The Select List of the year 1960, and in which the appellant's name stood at No. 13, contained names of nineteen officers. This Select List was approved by the Union Public Service Commission on 21st June, 1960. As a result of finalisation of the Select List for the year 1960, the appellant had to be reverted on 27th June, 1960, from the post of officiating Collector and Messrs Kochar and Pancholy, who had been placed above the appellant were appointed to the cadre posts of Collector. The appellant's representations proved abortive and on 15th January, 1962, the appellant's name was omitted from the Select List altogether. As a matter of fact, in the List prepared by the Selection Committee on 15th January, 1962, only five officers were included, namely, Messrs Randhir Singh Chaudhary, Nand Lal Mathur I, Tej Narain Kak, Ratan Narain Shivpuri and Vijai Singh, whose respective seniorities in the State List were at serial Nos. 54, 55, 56, 58 and 59. All these five officers were senior to the appellant, whose number in the seniority list was at 74. It was mentioned that the said five officers had superseded about twenty five officers and the reasons for supersession were specified. The name of the appellant was, however, not mentioned as one of the officers superseded, obviously because the said five officers were senior to the appellant in the seniority list, as mentioned hereinabove.

(2.) Having briefly recited the facts relevant to the controversy, it is necessary to read the provisions of the said Regulations, particularly because the grievance of the appellant before us has been based not on violation of Article 311 of the Constitution but on the violation of the said Regulations. Regulation 3 prescribes the constitution of a Committee for selecting the officers to be placed on the Select List and regulation 4 lays down the elgibility for promotion. Regulation 5, which has been most seriously pressed in aid on behalf of the appellant, is as under. 5. (1) The Committee shall prepare a list of such members of the State Civil Service as satisfy the condition specified in regulation 4 and as are held by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to the Service. (2) The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority. (3) The names of the officers included in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the State Civil Service : Provided that any junior officer who in the opinion of the Committee is of exceptional merit and suitablity may be assigned a place in the list higher than that of officers senior to him. (4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. (5) If in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession." .

(3.) Regulations requires the Select List prepared by the Committee to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records of the members of the State Civil service included in the Select List as well as of those, who are proposed to be superseded. The reasons recorded by the Committee for the proposed supersession of any member of the State Civil Service have also to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. Regulation 7 deals with the approval by the Commission and provides that" the list as finally approved by the Commission shall form the Select List of the members of the State Civil Service." Sub-regulation (4) of regulation 7, which, according to the appellant, provides the only mode and reason for removal of an officer from the Select List, is as under-