1992 (11) TMI 281 - SC - Indian Laws

Disparity in promotional avenues from State Civil Services to All India Administrative Service -equitable principles of comparable seniority - operation of the First Amendment Rules - prospective or retrospective - Word consultation - HELD THAT - The first Amendment Rules doubtless provided the weightage to a maximum of 9 years and would track back the year of allotment anterior to the date of inclusion in the select list under the Recruitment Rules read with Promotion Regulations. The proviso intended to protect the seniority of the officer promoted/appointed earlier than the appellants and its effect would be that till rule 3(3) (ii) fully becomes operational graded weightage was given to the promotees. In other words it prevented to get seniority earlier to the date of his/her appointment to the Indian Administrative service. Equally it intended not to let endless compulsive circumstances denied the benefits of full 9 years weightage to officers promoted during 1987 to 1992. The discrimination though is prevented unequals to become equals. The contention of sri P.P Rao therefore that invidious discrimination was meted out to senior officers and that they are similarly circumstanced are devoid of force. Admittedly the draft of the First Amendment Rules as circulated to the State Government did not contain the offending proviso. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Govt. that some of the State Government had suggested to incorporate the proviso and after necessary consultation the proviso was added to the First Amendment Rule. It is thereby clear that sec. 3(1) empowers the Central Govt. to make any rule regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of All India Service which include amendment from time to time but the rider it engrafted is that the power should be exercised after consultation with the Governments of the State concerned . It is already held that by operation of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act the rules or regulations are statutory in character. The proposal for amending the new Seniority Rules in the draft was only for inviting discussion and suggestions on the scope and ambit of the proposed law and the effect of the operation of the First Amendment Rules. Keeping the operational effect in view the proposed amendment could be modified or deleted or altered. The Central Govt. is not bound to accept all or every proposal or counter proposal. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the general consultation has by the Central Govt. with the State Govts. and Union Territories was sufficient and it was not necessary to have prior consultation again to bring the proviso on statutes as part of the First Amendment Rules.

Issues Involved:
1. Disparity in promotional avenues from State Civil Services to All India Administrative Service.
2. Validity of the prospective operation of the First Amendment Rules.
3. Whether the proviso to the First Amendment Rules is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
4. Requirement and sufficiency of consultation with State Governments for the amendment.

Summary:

1. Disparity in Promotional Avenues:
The petitioners, officers from the State Civil Service of U.P. and Bihar, contended that there was a wide disparity in promotional avenues to the All India Administrative Service (IAS) among different states. Officers from Andhra Pradesh and Kerala were promoted after 8-9 years of service, while those from U.P. and Bihar had to wait 24-27 years. The Central Government proposed amendments to the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, which were replaced by the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987, effective from November 6, 1987.

2. Validity of Prospective Operation of the First Amendment Rules:
The First Amendment Rules, published on February 3, 1989, were challenged for their prospective operation. The Tribunal at Lucknow found the prospective operation discriminatory but refused to direct the Union Government to amend the rules retrospectively. The Supreme Court upheld the prospective application, stating, "No statute shall be construed so as to have retrospective operation unless its language is such as plainly to require such construction." The Court emphasized that courts cannot issue a mandamus to the legislature to make laws retrospectively.

3. Proviso to the First Amendment Rules and Articles 14 and 16(1):
The proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the First Amendment Rules was challenged as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that the proviso was intended to protect the seniority of officers promoted earlier and prevent unjust results. "The proviso intended to protect the seniority of the officer promoted/appointed earlier than the appellants and its effect would be that till rule 3(3)(ii) fully becomes operational graded weightage was given to the promotees." The Court found no invidious discrimination and upheld the proviso as intra vires the Constitution.

4. Requirement and Sufficiency of Consultation:
The petitioners argued that the proviso was added without proper consultation with State Governments. The Court elaborated on the meaning of "consultation" and concluded that the consultation with State Governments and the Ministry of Law was sufficient. "The general consultation has by the Central Govt. with the State Govts. and Union Territories was sufficient and it was not necessary to have prior consultation again to bring the proviso on statutes as part of the First Amendment Rules." The Court dismissed the contention that the proviso was void for lack of consultation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the prospective operation of the First Amendment Rules and the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii). The Court found that the Central Government had conducted sufficient consultation with State Governments and the Ministry of Law. The appeals were decided as follows: WP (C) No. 499/91 and C.A. No. 4794/92 were dismissed, while C.A. No. 4788/92 was allowed.

← Previous Next →