LexGUMAN SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASl'HAN & ORS. 11'/y 26, 1'171 [S, M. S!KRI, C. J., G. K. MIT'rER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGAN· MOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J /laja>thu11 Adtn/11/stratl\'t' Sr•,.vi<',• Ru!ds, 1954, rr. 288(2) a11d 32- Va/idity of-Wli•thtr violativr of Arts. 14 & 16 of Constitution b.ca11,. of abHnce of 1uidtlln•s In the matter of ,,,Im/on of <'and/dates by mtrlt- Circ11lnr dated August 27, 1966 ll'lirt/ir1· Invalid on th• ground 1/1at the nuirkln11 .vy.~ft111 laid down i11 /1 went ag1.1in~t the Rules 111 regard to seltc• tion by mcrit-Dcpartm•11ta/ Promorlon Committee taking advtr11 remarks in confidtntial report into actount wlthnur tht.fe havfn1f hc•e1t rtJmmurricat- ''" ro the officrr co11cerned-Et1ect. The appellant G was a member of I.he Rajasthan Administrative Ser- vice. Aggrieved by the order allotting seniority to him under the Raja,. than Administrative Service H..ules, 1954, he filed a writ petition under Art. 226 in the High Court. A single Judge of the court allowed the petition. However in appeal by the State the Division Bench decided a11ainst the appellant who by special leave appealed to this Court. Two other mem· bers of the Rajasthan Administrative Senice, similarly ag11rieved filed writ petitions under Art. 32 before this Court. The common questioilS that fell for consideration in the appeal and writ petitions were; (i) whether rr. 28B(2) and 32 of the Raja.than Administrative Service Rules w.re violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they did not contain any 11uidelines in the matter of deteriminina the merit of candi- dates; (ii) whether the circular dated Au11ust 27, 1966 issued by the State Government laying down a sysiem of marking for the purpose of deter- mining the merit of candidates was invalid because it was contrary to the relevant Rules in this regard. The appellant G also complained that ad· verse remarks in his confidential report which had not been communicat .. ed to him had been taken into account against him by the Departmental Promotion Committee. HELD: (i) Rule 32 in essence adopts what is stated in r. 28B. T''° latter rule provides for two methods of selection one based on merit nnd the other based on seniority-cum-merit. In other words, the rule provides that the promotion based on merit in co11tradiction to that based on senio- rity-cum-merit shall strictly be on the basis of merit. The Selection Com- mittee and the Promotion Committee consist of very responsible and senior officers of the State and being persons of experience they can be trusted to evaluate the merits of a partic:utar officer. No doubt the word 'merit' is not capable of easy definition, but it can be safely said that merit is a sum total of various question!: and attributes of an "mployee such as his academic qualifications, his distinction in the University, his character, integrity, devotion to duty and the manner in which he dis- charges bis official duties. Allied to this may be various other matters or factors such as his punctuality in work, the quality and out-turn of work done by him and the manner of ois dealing with his superiors and subordinate officers and the general public and his rank In the service. Tbe various particulars in the annual confidential reports of an officer is OUMAN SINGH v.1\1\IASTHAN (Vaidiallngam, J.) carefully and properly noted, will aiso give a very broad and general indi· cation regarding the merit of an officer. Therefore it cannot he stated that rr. 288 and 32 are in any manner vasue or do not give any guide- lines for assegsing the merit ofan officer. [921B-F] (ii) (a) The restriction contained in the proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 288 is quite reasonable. Before an officer in the junior scale can be consider- ed as fit for promotion to the senior scale it ls necessary that be should have worked on a post in the service at least for some period of time. As to what the quantum of that period must be is not for this Court to lay down. Tho Oovernfnent hu fixed this period as six years. It cannot be said that It Is an Improper restriction. [922A·BJ (b) The provisions contained in sub-r. (2) conftnina tho selection to senior-most officers not oxceedina 10 tlmes tho number of total vacancle& is also reasonable. Such a provision will encourage the members of the service to aspire for promotion for making themselves eligible by increas- ing their efficiencies In the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.