GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus G. LIMBADRI RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 22-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 
v. 
G. LIMBADRI RAO AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
/AS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997-Regulation 4-
Appointment by selection to the Post of /AS-Preparation of Select list for 
year 2002-/nadvertently year wrongly mentioned as 2001 in Government 
Order-Eligibility of officers reckonedfrrJm 1.1.2002- Claim of officer for 
being considered for appointment demanding reckoning of eligibility from 
1. I. 200 I treating the Select List for year 2001 ~/aim rejected by Tribunal-
High Court allowed the claim on the ground that the eligibility of officers 
were to be reckoned from 1. 1.2001-0n appeal, 'held: The officer is not 
entitled/or consideration/or appointment-As per the provisions a/Selection 
Regulations the eligibility of the officers is to be reckoned from 1st January 
in the year in which SCM meets i.e. 1. 1.2002 in the present case. 
State Government, by its letter dated 25.10.2001 decided to send 
necessary proposal to Union Public Service Commission for preparation 
of Select List of Non-State Civil Service Officers for the year 2002 for 
appointment to the IAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection) 
Regulations, 1997. 
In the subject heading of the letter '2.001' was 
inadvertently given instead of '2002'. However, in the contents of the 
letter the year was correctly given as '2002'. As per the Selection 
Regulations, officers having attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002 
were not eligible for consideration for appointment. First respondent, 
who had attained 54 years of age on 1.1.2002 was not considered, hence 
he filed application before Administrative Tribunal seeking direction 
for considering him for appointment on the ground that in view of the 
letter the Select List was for 2001, and he had not attained 54 years of 
age on 1.1.2001. Tribunal rejected his claim. Respondent's Writ Petition 
before High Court was allowed on the ground that eligibility of the 
officers were to be reckoned from 1.1.2001. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
618 
·-,. 
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
619 
HELD: 
The first respondent is not eligible and entitled for· A 
considering his name for appointment to the post of IAS by selection. 
High Court is not correct in allowing the Writ Petition of the first 
respondent by misquoting Regulation 4 of IAS (Appointment by Selection) 
Regulations, 1997. It is seen from the records that for the recruitment 
year 2002, the proposals were received in that year and the eligibility of 
B 
officers were reckoned from the 1st of January, 2002 as per the provisions 
of the Selection Regulations. The High Court's observation that the 
eligibility of the officers were to be reckoned from 1.1.2001 is a misinter-
pretation of the Rules and Regulations and this interpretation would 
bring to naught the entire selection process undertaken by the Union 
Public Service Commission not only for the State Government but for 
C 
all the State/Cadres where selections have been made under the Selection 
Regulations. The interpretation of the Rules by the High Court is not 
a harmonious construction of interpretation of the Rules and Regulations 
and if not set aside would have wide scale implications on the selection 
of officers for appointment to IAS under the Selection Regulations since 
the Selection Committee would then be required to consider the eligibility 
of the officers of a previous and not the current year. Moreover, the 
High Court has given relief to the first respondent herein under an 
inadvertent typographical error in a letter of the State Government 
dated 25.10.2001 and this essentially circumvents the letter and spirit of 
the statutory Rules and Regulations. It is amply clear from the Regulation 
that eligibility of officers is reckoned from the 1st of January in the year 
in which the SCM meets which would be 1.1.2002 in the instant case. 
(627-C; 626-D-G; 627-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6234 of2004. 
From the Judgmnent and Order dated 13.8.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. Nos. 9653 of 2002. 
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Subba Rao and P. Parmeswaran 
for the Appellant. 
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy (N.P.), B. Krishna Prasad (NP) for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
620 

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