ACCOUNTANT GENERAL & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus S. DORAISWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 13-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

15 5 
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL & ANR. Ere. ETC. 
A 
v. 
S. DORAISWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
November 13, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. PATHAK & 0. CHINNAPPA RLDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 148(5) and 309--Scope of. 
Conlptroller and Auditor-General-FunctiPns of-Head of Indian 
Audit 
and Accounts Departme·nt-Persons serving in the tkpartn1ent-Whether hold-
,,...-
ing office exclusively in connection with the affairs. af the Union-Regulation 
C 
of their recruitn1ent and conditions of service-Whether within the 
domain 
of the President under Article 309 prpviso. 
Indian Audit t"' 
Accounts 
Depart1nent (Subordinate 
Accounts 
ServicP. 
& Subordinate Railway Audit S.ei!Vice) Service Rules 1974, Rules 1(2) 
and 
HJ-Whether can have retrospective operation-Rule 1(2) whether ultra vires-
Power conferred on Co1nptroller & Auditor-Gelleral under Rul2 10-Whether 
violates the doctrine against excessive delegation. 
Co1nptrpller & Auditor-General's Manual of Standing Orders para 143-
Wh.et!zer could be amended by departmental instructions. 
D 
In 1921 the Auditor-General, as the administrative head of the 
Indian 
Audit Department, inserted Article 1666A by a 
circular No. 
1757-E/1129 
dated 18th April 1921 giving weight to the length of service as Upper Divi-
E 
sion Clerks in the fixation of seniority in the Subordinate Accounts Service. 
In the 
Audit Code 
prepared 
subsequently, 
Article 1666A appeared 
as 
Article 52. Thereafter, in the Manual of Standing Orders issued by the Auditor-
General in 1938, Article 52 found expression as paragraph 143. By a correc-
tion 
slip dated 
27th 
July, 
1956, 
the 
Comptroller and Auditor-General 
removed the factor of weightage on the basis of length of service 
in 
the 
determination of seniority. -
F 
The respondents in the appeals, who had entered service in 
the 
Office 
of the Accountant General, as Upper Division Clerks, appeared in the Subor-
dinate Accounts. Service Examination and passed the 
examination 
held 
in 
November 1969, and were 
promoted 
shortly 
thereafter. They 
claimed 
seniority on the basis that their length of service in the inferior post should 
be taken into account, and rested their claim on paragraph 143 of the Manual 
G 
of 
Standing 
Orders 
as 
it 
stood 
prior 
to 
its 
amendment 
by 
the 
correction slip of 27th July 1956. The claim was rejected by the 
Comp-
troller and Auditor-Genera]. 
A writ petition filed by them in the High Court was allowed 1.Jy a Single 
Judge and the judgment ·was affirmed by the 
Appellate Bench of the High 
Court. 
The Accountant-General and the Comptrolier and Auditor-General appealed 
to this Court. During the pendency of the appeals, 
the 
President enacted 
l l-1281 SCl/80 
H 
'
---~·---~. 
---·~~~----~"• 6
1
IM
!VllM
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
the lndian Audit and Accounts Department (Subordinate Accounts 
Service 
& Subordinate Railway Audit Service) Service Rules, 1974. 
They were deen1-
ed to have come into force on 27th July, 
1956. These rules 
purported to 
give statutory recognition to the amendment of paragraph 143 by the Comp-
troller 
and 
Auditor-General. Rule 6 
provided 
for appointments to 
the 
Service and Rule 7 dealt with seniority. Rule 9 provided that in 
matters 
not specifically provided for the rules, regulations, orders or instructions of the 
Central Civil Services as applicable to the Indian Audit and Accounts Depart-
ment 
would 
be 
applicable. Rule 10 empowered 
the 
Comptroller 
and 
.1\uditor-General to issue general or special instructions for giving effect to 
the Rules. 
In the appeals, the respondents assailed the validity of the 
Rules 
of 
1974 and the amendment made in paragraph 143, contending that the Rules 
--~ 
are invalid as clause (5) of Article 148 does not permit 
the 
retrospective 
enactment of rules made thereunder, that the specific 
rules 
affecting 
the 
seniority of the respondents are iµvalid because in entrusting power to the 
Con1ptroller and Auditor-General to issue orders and 
instructions 
in 
his 
discreti&n the doctrine against excessive delegation of legislative power 
bas 
been violated, and that paragraph 143 possesses the status of a stntutory role 
and, therefore, the amendment attempted by the correction 
slip has no legal 
effect upon it. 
In the connected writ petitions, the petitioners who had passed the Suber~ 
dinate Accounts Service Examination were promoted to the Service after 1956 
so

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.