JOGINDER LAL SAWHNEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held in 1975 for the preparation of a list of candidates qualified to be appointed to the Grade of Section Oificers in the Central Secretariat Service, along with Assistants who are a part of the said Service, Stenographers belonging to Grade II of the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service who do not belong to the Central Secretariat Service, are also allowed to compete. This is objected to by some of the Assistants who have filed this writ petition. The attack on the decision of the Union of India (Respondent 1) taken after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (Respondent 2) to allow the Stenographers to compete at this examination along with the Assistants is based on two alternative grounds. It is firstly alleged that the scheme of the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 and the Fourth Schedule thereof is such that only the Assistants arc meant to compete at the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Lender clause (2) of paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule of the Rules, "the rules for the limited departmental competitive examinations referred to in clause (1) above shall be as determined by regulations made by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Cabinet Secretariat and the allotment of candidates from the results of these examinations to the various cadres shall also be made by that Department." It is alleged that insofar as these regulations enabled the Stenographers to competeat the Examination along with the Assistants, they are ulira vires of the Rules. Secondly, it is said in the alternative that if the regulations are not ultra vires, then the relevant Rules themselves are unconstitutional being contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Rules are themselves made by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The same Department is authorised to make the regulations under clause (2) of paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule. The first regulations made in 1964 enabled the Stenographers to compete along with the Assistants at the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The question whether Assistants alone should be allowed to compete or whether Stenographers also should be allowed to compete at the said Examination is entirely administrative. There is no law involved in it. It would require strong evidence in the language of the Rules to show that the Government Department which framed the Rules, which also framed the regulations and which acted upon the same by allowing the Stenographers to compete at the said Examination from 1964 to 1969 did not know its own mind as retlected in the language of the Rules. Such strong evidence is not forthcoming from any provision of the Rules.

(3.) The basic provision is contained in clause (1) (c) of paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule. Sub-clauses (a) and (b) refer to Assistants joining the Section Officers' Grade either by selection or by seniority. Sub-clause (c) speaks of persons who can become Section Officers by success at the limited departmental competitive examination. This sub-clause was originally numbered as sub-clause (b) when the regulations were first framed and acted upon by allowing the Stenographers to appear at the said examination. The crucial words of sub-clause (c) are "persons selected on the results of the limited departmental competitive examinations". It was argued by Mrs. Shyamla Pappu that the word "persons" must be construed in the context of the scheme of the Rules to mean only "Assistants" and no other persons. The reasons in support of the argument are that the Central Secretariat Service which contains the Grade of Section Officers. also contains the Assistants but does not take in the Stenographers who have a separate Service of their own. But this cannot necessarily mean that the posts of Section Officers are to be filled up only by Assistants. Even the Rules as originally framed contemplated Stenographers filling up the posts of Section Officers. For instance, rule 12(2) allows Stenographers with certain experience and who have acted as Section Officers for two years to be included in the Select List for Grade I of the Service. This means that for two years Stenographers were allowed to act as Section Officers with a view to promotion to a Grade above the Grade of Section Officers. This Grade I is also in the Central Secretariat Service. The assumption made on behalf of the petitioners that persons outside this Service are not to come into the Service to occupy any Grade in the Service is, therefore, not warranted. If Grade I of the Service could be filled up partly by recruiting Stenographers, there is no a priori reason why the Grade of Section Officers cannot be filled up partly by Stenographers.