S. RAMANATHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 07-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. RAMANATHAN 
11. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 2000 
B 
(G.B. PATTANA!K AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law : 
Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ of mandamus-Failure by 
C appropriate authority to conduct triennial review of cadre strength as per 
Rules in time-Held, mandamus cannot be denied when no reasons are given 
for not conducting the review-Rule 4-lndian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 
1954- All India Service Act, 1951. 
D 
Appellants are State Pollce Service Officers, who have been promoted 
to the Indian Police Service. Central Government, under provisions of the All 
lndin Service Act, 1951 framed the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 
[Cadre Rules! in consultation with all State Governments. As per Rule 4 of 
the Cadre Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the Central Government to re-
determine the strength and composition of each cadre at intervals of every 
E three years. This triennial review is necessary for preparation of select lists 
for promotions under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) 
Regulntions, 1955. The appropriate authority did not conduct the triennial 
review regularly with the result the appellants did not get promotion to the 
Indian Police Service in time. The triennial review, which was due in 1987, 
F was initiated in 1989 and completed in 1991 with an increase in the cadre 
strength. The appellants appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal 
seeking mandamus on the ground of inaction of the appropriate authority to 
have triennial review in time as per the Rules and consequential directions 
for reconsideration of the appellants for promotion to the post of Indian Police 
Service from an anterior date. The Tribunal, analysing the factual position, 
G concluded that there has been no triennial review for re-determination of the 
cadre strength as per the Cadre Rules, but, however, refused to issue 
mandamus as no prejudice was caused to the appellants. Hence these appeals. 
The appellants contended that when statutory rules and regulations 
H provide for review of cadre strength within a specified period, it is the duty of 
450 
• 
S. RAMANATHAN v. U.0.1. 
451 
the authorities to enforce the concerned provisions and review the cadre A 
strength and failure to do so will entitle the appellants to have a mandamus 
from the Court. The appellants further contended that there was no explanation 
from the Union of India for not doing the triennial review in time. 
The respondents contended that the appellants did not make a specific 
prayer before the Tribunal seeking a mandamus for having a triennial review B 
as per the Rules in time and therefore the appellants should not be allowed to 
raise the matter after so many years which would unsettle the settled 
questions. 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed 
by Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (I) of Section 
3 of the All India Service Act, 1951. The language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, 
as it stood prior to its amendment, is rather peremptory in nature and thus it 
requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and D 
composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government 
concerned and make such alteration therein as it deems fit. It is true that llD 
infraction of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an 
employee for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But it cannot be 
denied that if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation 
is forth-coming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances E 
llnder which the exercise could not be undertaken. The aggrieved party may 
well approach a Court and a Court would be well within Its jurisdiction to 
issue appropriate directions, depending upon the circumstances of the case. 
When certain power has been conferred upon the Central Government for 
examining the cadre strength, it is coupled with a duty to comply with the F 
requirements of the law and any infraction on the score cannot be whittled 
down on the hypothesis that no vested right of any employee is being 
jeopardised. When Rules and Regulations provide for certain things to be 
done at a certain period, the same should normally be observed and if there 
has been a failure, the Court should compel the performance of that duty. 
[457-E-H; 458-A, Bl G 
1.2. It would not be appropriate for the Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.