GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 09-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
518 
GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS 
March 9, 1979 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, J.J 
I11dia11 Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 
-Rcquiren1ent of Integrity Certificate-Resolutions I.1 and 1.2 lVhether ultra 
vires tlu' Regulations. 
~ 
Adverse report in confidential roll-Not communicated to the person con-
cerned-Whether can be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities. 
C 
The Indian Administrative 
Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-
tions, 1955 formulates the procedure for selecting persons from the Sta>te Civil 
Service Cadre for the purpose of bringing them on the· select list of the Indian 
Administrative service. Regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of the 
list of suitable officers provides by cl. (2) that the selection for inclusion in 
such list shall be based on merit and suitability in 
all respects with due 
regard to seniority, \vhile cl. (5) provides that if it is proposed to supersede 
D 
any member of the State Civil Service~ the Selection Committee stall re·cord 
its reasons for the proposed supersession. 
E 
F 
The "Government of lndia'_s Decisions" under the regulations have been 
•published by the Govt. in the All India Services Manual, Part II. 
Resolution 1.1 requires the Chief Secretary to the State Government \vho 
is the sponsoring authority to record a .certificate in respect of every eligible 
officer whose case is placed before· the Selection Committee, that the State 
Government certifies the integrity of the officer with reference to the entries 
in his a·nnual confiden.tial reports. 
Resolution 1.2 provides that the Selection Committee should specifically 
record in its proceedings that it is satisfied from the remarks in the confidential 
reports of the officers selected by it for inclusion in the. Select List that there 
was nothing against their integrity. 
The appellant and respondents 8 to 15 were members of the Punjab Ovil 
Service (Executive Branch), the respondentS being junior to the 2ppellant. 
Th 
1966-67, an adverse entry W36 recorded in the confidential report of the appel-
lant by the District and Sessions Judge. 
No· decision was taken by the Govern-
ment as to whether the adverse entry was justified and whether the contentions 
G 
raised by the appellant in his representation to t~e same were well founded. 
H 
After 1966-67, the appellant worked in various capocities, earned good 
reports and was allowed to cross the first and second efficiency bars. However, 
reipondents 8 to 15 were promoted to the selection grade of the <Jervice ·prior 
to the appellant. 
His representation in this regard was rejected t·y the Govern-
ment. 
N.espondents 2 to 7 who constituted the committee for selecting persons 
from the Punjab Civil Service cadre for the purpose of bringing them on the 
select list of the Indian Administrative Service, selected respondent no. 9. 1lle 
• 
• 
I 
, 
G. S, FlJJI V. PUNJAB 
519 
4.ppellant.'s name was not put on the select list, since respondent no. 2, the 
A 
:Chief Secretary to the State Govt. had refused to give an 'integrity certificate' 
to hin1. 
His representation against the non-inclusion having been rejected, he 
.approached the High Court. 
The High Court rejected the appellant's contention that resolution 1.1 was 
ultra vires of regulations 4 and 5; but quashed the order of the State Govern-
ment granting seniority to. two junior officers over the appellant in the selection 
B 
.grade. 
In appeal by the appellant, the High Court held that it is no\vherre laid 
_.down that integrity certificate is the requirement for eligibility for promqtion. 
lntegrity certificate is the requirement of resolution 1.1 which is only an execu· 
.tive instruction. No criteria is mentioned. nor guidelines provided lliS to how 
the integrity certificate is to be issued. 
The' executive instruction, tberefore, 
went beyond the scope of the statutory regulation, the provision requiring the 
production of the integrity certificate, was unguided and was likely to lead to 
arbitrariness and unreasonableness and that therefore resolution 1.1 was ultra 
'Vires of regulations 4 and 5. 
The High Court held further that the records 
·Of the Selection Committee reveal that the decision not to include the appellant's 
name in the select list was not based solely on the ground of non-availability 
"Of the integrity certificate and that the Committee had given another. cogent 
-reaso

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