INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (S.C.S.) ASSOCIATION, U.P. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 11-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (S.C.S.) 
ASSOCIATION, U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 11, 1992 
[A.M: AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Senion'ty)(First Amend-
ment) Rules, I989: 
Rule 3(3)(ii) Seniority of promotees/direct recntits assigning year of 
allotn1e11t--Procedure-Legis/ative intention tt-·hat is-Junior officer prontoted 
on nierit superseding seniors-Year of allotment of such officer-Fixation of 
Interpretation of Stahttes: 
A 
B 
c 
l.A.S. (Regulation of Seniority) (First Amendment) Rules, I981}-Ru/e D 
3(3) (ii) proviscr--<:onstntction-Whether prospective in operation-Legislative 
inte11tion-Wltat is. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles I4, 16 and Rule 3(3)(ii), proviso of I.A.S. (Regulation of E 
Senian·ty) (First An1end1nent) Rules, 1989-Constitutional validity of-
Wliether inconsistent with Section 3( IA) of the All India Services Act, I957. 
All India Services Act, I95I: 
Section 3( lA)--Rules made under-Rule 3(3)(ii) proviso of the First 
F 
An1endn1ent Rules, 1989-<:onsultation--Object, in1portance and nature 
of-Fail11rc to consult all States and Union Tcnitories-Whether proviso to 
Rule 3 ( 3 J unco11stifltrional. 
On 19.1.1984, the Association [petitioner No. l in W.P. (0 No. 499 
of 1991] requested the Union Government (Respondent) to remove the G 
disparity prevailing in different states of promotional avenues from State 
Civil Services to A.II India A.dministrative Sen·ice. 
A Committee of Senior Secretaries, constituted by the Union 
Government, recommended an equitable principle of comparable seniority 
from different States for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. H 
389 
A 
B 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
The I.A.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 came into force with 
effect from 6.11.1987, repealing the old Rules. 
In a Circular dated 9.9.1986 issued by the respondent-Union 
Government directed the State Governments to give weigbtage over and 
above rour years the assignment or year or allotment as per the existing 
rules, namely, four years for the first U years State service with additional 
weigbtage one year for every two to three years completed service subject 
to a maximum or live years. 
union Government amended and published the New Seniority 
C Rules, 1987, arter considering the suggestions from. the State Govern-
ments. The First Amendment Rules was published in the Gazette or India 
on 3.2.1989 which was given prospective operation from 3.2.1989. 
The appellants in C.A. No. 4794 of 1992 questioned Rule 3(3) (ii) 
proviso orthe First Amendment Rules, in an application before the C.A.T. 
D at Patna. They contended that though they were found to be entitled to the 
total weigbtage or 9 years since the juniors were given 1983 as the year of 
allotment by operation of proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the First Amendment 
Rules, were given 1983 as the year of allotment and thereby the appellants 
were denied the 3 years weigbtage. 
E . 
The Tribunal upheld the Rules and dismissed the application, 
F 
against which appeal - C.A. No. 4794 of 1992 - was filed in this Court. 
The appellants in C.A. No. 4788 of 1992, some members of the 
Association - petitioner No. 1 of the W.P. (C) No. 499 of 1991 - filed an 
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Lucknow con-
tending that they were promoted in 1980 onwards, and they were dis-
criminated in fixation of their seniority. 
The Tribunal held that the prospective operation of the 1987 Rules 
discriminated the Senior State Civil Service Officers, but refused lo direct 
G the Union Government to amend the Rules but retrospective effect. How-
ever, it requested the Government of India to reconsider the matter and 
to give retrospective operation to the First Amendment Rules. This 
decision was questioned ht an appeal - C.A. No. 4788 of 1992. 
In WP(C)No. of 499 of 1991, Petitioner No. 1 - An Association 
H representing the officers of the U.P. State Civil Service - and petitioners 
I.AS. ASSCN. v. U.O.l. 
391 
2-17, its members filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
A 
lion to quash the order of the respondent - Union Government dated 
12.12.1990, and for a direction to extend the benefit flowing from the First 
Amendment Rules to its members promoted prior to January 1988. It was 
contended that the First Amendment Rules operated with effect from 1992, 
whereas the promotee Officers were promoted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.