2010 (3) TMI 1057 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether re-examination on the strength and composition of cadre in the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken place in accordance with the mandate of Rule 4 sub-rule (2) of Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954 ?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cadre review for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003.
2. Whether the cadre review conducted in 2005 should have retrospective effect from 2003.
3. The impact of delay in cadre review on the promotion opportunities of State Civil Service (SCS) officers to the IAS.
4. The legal interpretation of the term "ordinarily" in Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the cadre review for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003:
The respondents, members of the State Civil Service (SCS) of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the cadre review was due in 2003. The Central Government, through several letters, reiterated that the cadre review was due on 30th April 2003, in line with Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh initially argued that the cadre review was due in 2005 but later admitted that it was indeed due in 2003. The court acknowledged this agreement between the Central and State Governments, affirming that the cadre review was due in 2003.

2. Whether the cadre review conducted in 2005 should have retrospective effect from 2003:
The appellants argued that the notification dated 25th August 2005, which re-fixed the cadre strength, explicitly stated that it would come into force on the date of its publication, thus making it prospective. The court noted that the statutory duty to undertake cadre review every five years is ordinarily mandatory, subject to exceptions justified by specific circumstances. The court held that the delay in conducting the cadre review was due to the inaction of the Uttar Pradesh Government and not justified by any acceptable ground. Consequently, the court supported the High Court's direction to consider the cadre review as if it took place in 2003, to mitigate the hardship caused by the delay.

3. The impact of delay in cadre review on the promotion opportunities of State Civil Service (SCS) officers to the IAS:
The respondents argued that the delay in the cadre review deprived them of their promotion opportunities to the IAS. The court emphasized that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution, flowing from the guarantee of equality under Article 14. The delay in the cadre review prevented eligible SCS officers from being fairly considered for promotion, thus violating their legitimate expectations. The court recognized that the respondents' chances of promotion were adversely affected by the government's inaction.

4. The legal interpretation of the term "ordinarily" in Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954:
The appellants contended that the term "ordinarily" in Rule 4(2) qualified the statutory mandate for a cadre review every five years, implying flexibility. The court, however, interpreted "ordinarily" in the context of promotional opportunities, emphasizing that it should fulfill the statutory intent. The court held that the term "ordinarily" does not promote a cast-iron rule but must be construed to ensure timely cadre reviews, barring justifiable exceptions. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that the term "ordinarily" does not alter the mandatory nature of the provision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to consider the cadre review as if it took place in 2003, recognizing the delay caused by the Uttar Pradesh Government's inaction. The court emphasized the fundamental right to be considered for promotion and interpreted the term "ordinarily" to ensure timely cadre reviews, barring unjustifiable delays. The appeals filed by the Union of India were disposed of with a modification, reiterating the High Court's directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, ensuring fairness and mitigating the hardship caused to the respondents.

← Previous Next →