RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH AND ANR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 27-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH AND ANR ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 27, 1996 
B 
IA.M. AHMADI, CJ AND MRS. SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
S e1vice Law : 
Indian Administrative Se1vice (Appointment by Promotion) Rq,•lia-
C tions, 1955 : 
Regulation 5( I )(2)(3 f-Provisos-l!lteipretatioi; of-Bihar Administra-
tive Se1vicc-Officers orPromotion to illdian Administrative Se1vice-Seiec-
tion Committee fm~Selections made byHeld valid. 
D 
Se1vice Law-Selection-Selection Committee-Consideration of 264 
names Oil a single day-Non-application of mind-Held not establi1·hed Oil 
facts. 
Se1vice Law-Selection Committee-Brother of a candidate-Member 
E of Committee--<:andidate not selected-Held selections were not vitiated on 
accoum ofpa1ticipatioll of brother of calldidate. 
A Selection Committee was constituted for selection of officers of the 
Bihar Administrative Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative 
Service. The number of anticipated vacancies for which selection was held 
F 
wi!re 43. As per Regulation 5(2) of Indian Administrative Service (Appoint-
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the zone of consideration was lixed 
at 153 (i.e. 43 vacancies plus 20%x 3). In addition to this, ollicers (a) whose 
names were on the earlier Selection List in force (one such officer) (first 
proviso to Regulation 5(3) and (b) officers who though above the age of 54 
G were eligible under the second proviso to Regulation 5(3) because there 
were no selections in the years 1991-92and1992-93 (110 such ollicers) were 
included. The total number of ollicers, therefore, considered by the Selec-
r 
\ 
·' 
tion Committee were 153+1+110, that is to say, 264. The selections were 
:,. 
set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna holding that (i) 
only three times the number of anticipated vacancies for the year plus 20% 
H could have been considered as within the zone of consideration before the 
964 
y 
' 
RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH v. U.O.L 
965 
Selection Committee; the consideration of other officers under Regulation A 
5(3) was contrary to the 1955 Regulations; (ii) the two provisos'to Regula• 
lion 5(3) which require the Selection Committee to consider certain can-
' didates who may be above the age of 54 yea_rs, has to be interpreted as 
applying only to the candidates who are within the zone ofconsidetation 
as defined under Regulatilm 5(2) but who may have attained the age of 54 
years. These candidates, if they fall within the proviso t<i Reb'lilation 5(3); 
will have to be considered by the Committee; (iii) the proceedings of the 
Selection Committee were vitiated on account of the participation of a 
member of the Selection Committee because his brother was within the 
B 
·" 
zone of consideration although the latter has not been selected; a_nd (iv) 
T 
there was non-application of mind by the Selection Committee in consider-
C 
ing. 264 names on a single day. Against the judgment of the Tribunal 
appeals were preferred bef~re this Court. 
,. 
) 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the jndgment of the Tribunal, 
this Court 
HELD :I. The Selection List prepared by the Selection Committee is 
a valid Selection List and is in accordance with law. [971-G] 
2. According to the Tribunal; the zone of consideration should have 
been confined to only iS3 officers. This interptetation is in the teeth of the 
expr~ss provisions of Regulation 5(2). While Regulation 5(2) provides that 
the_ numher of officers'.~equired to be considered are three times the number 
of anticipated vacancies plus· 20%,the proviso· to Regulation 5(2) lays down 
that in computing the number of _officers who should be in the field of 
consid~i-ation· und~r Regulation 5(2), the 'number of officers r~fe~red to in 
sub-regnlatiim (3) shall he excluded. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 
which confers.a right to be co~sidei-ed on certain State Civil Servants who 
may have attained the age of 54 also does not <1ualify 'this right to be 
considered by addingthat such a person shall be considered only if he is 
within the zone of consideration under'Regulation 5(2). Clearly, therefore, 
D 
E 
F 
the .persons who a.re requir.ed to be considered for selection under Regula- G 
tion 5(3) are in a~dition to the per.~ons wh<~ a~e rettUired to. be considered 
under Regulation 5(2). In fact, this is how these recruitment regulations 
have been interpreted over a number of years. (969-F-G, 970-A-C] 
· 
3. Th·e brother ,~fa candidate Was member of the Selection C

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