LexGUDUR KISHAN RAO AND ORS. versus SUTIRTHA BHATTACHARYA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GUDUR KISHAN RAO AND ORS. A v. '\ SUTIRTHA BHATTACHARYA AND ORS. .... FEBRUARY 23, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B ~-< Service Law : Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954: Rules 8 and 9. c All India Services-Ceiling-Supernumerary posts-Adding or Change in ceiling-Effect of-Validity-State Civil Service Officers-Promotion to /AS-Ceiling of 33-113% laid down in R.9(1)-14 supernumerary posts created by issuing notification to accommodate State Civil Service Officers who were D illegally kept out of promotion to the !AS-These posts added to Item 3 of the Schedule to the Cadre Strength Regulations-However, no corresponding increase made against Items 1 and 2-Held: Any Regulation merely increasing the number of posts in Item 3 without corresponding increase of Items 1 and 2 is violative of the ceiling of 33-113% and also the mandate of the Cadre Strength Regulation itself-Hence, the said ceiling cannot be exceeded by E creation of supernumerary posts against Item 3-Therefore, the said notification declared invalid-Consequently, another notification promoting the State Civil Service Officers against the supernumerary posts also declared inva/id-IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, R.4(1)-/AS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, Sch. Items 1 to 3. F Service Rules and Regulations-Interpretation of-Harmonious I construction-Held: Court would attempt to make a harmonious construction of different sets of rules and regulations to try to save them-But if they cannot be saved in any manner they would struck down-Interpretation of Statutes. G Appointment and Promotion-Notifications created supernumerary posts and promotions of State Civil Service Officers to the /AS-Validity of-Held: > Most of the promotee officers might have superannuated in the meantime- Therefore, promotions already made need not be disturbed-However, officers promoted in excess of ceilling limit allowed to continue and adjusted in H 1053 1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A subsequent years -But such continuance will not confer on them the benefit of seniority and the year of allotment-Aforesaid directions issued with a view to doing "complete justice between the parties. "--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142. All India Service-Condition-Scheme and History of-Stated and B explained-All India Services Act, 1951-All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960--Indian Civil Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1950--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 312(1). The appellants were promottee officers of the Indian Administrative C Service (JAS) who were initially appointed as Deputy Collectors in the State Civil Service. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel issued a Notification dated 15-12-1993 creating 14 supernumerary posts in the IAS to accommodate the appellants who were illegally kept out of promotion to the IAS for the year 1987. These 14 supernumerary posts were added by amending Item 3 in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation D of Cadre Streni,,ith) Regulations, 1955. By another Notification dated 16-12- 1993 the Government of India appointed the appellants to the IAS. The respondents, who were direct recruit IAS officers, challenged the said two Notifications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the two Notifications on the ground that these contravened E Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Notification dated 15-12-1993 was a rule made under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1955 and could not be struck down on the ground that it contravened Rule F 9 of the Recruitment Rules; and that since the Recruitment Rules and the Notifications were made under Section 3(1) of the Act both must be harmonised. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Ruic 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules prescribed a ceiling of 33-1/3/% of the number of posts G shown again~t Items 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the Regulations and therefore, the Notification dated 15-12-1993 violated Ruic 9(1) since it did not make a corres11onding increase against Items 1 and 2. Dismissing the appeal, this Court H HELD : 1. Under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service f -~ G.K. RAO v. S. BHATTACHARYA 1055 (Recruitment Rules), 1954, there is a prohibition that .the numbe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.