SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA versus UNION OF LNDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 11-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SA TY A NARAIN SHUKLA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. 
MAY 11, 2006 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Empanelment of State cadre Indian Administrative Service officer for 
post of Additional Secretary to Government of India-Central Staffing 
Scheme formula1ed by a resolulion of Government of India-Validity and 
applicability of-Held: The Scheme was neither a Rule nor Regulation within 
meaning of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, I95I hence it could not 
be said to be invalid for formulation without consultation of State 
Government-It was not unconstitutional as Central Government's executive 
power extended to same subjects and extent as that of Parliament, as long 
as it did not infringe any provision of any rule made by the Parliament or 
of constitution-The several set of Rules framed under the Act were not 
exhaustive of all service conditions applicable to IAS, and field of possible 
executive action was not completely occupied by either statute or rules 
framed thereunder-These Rules did not specifically deal with subject and 
it was open to executive to resort to executive instructions by way of an office 
memo to prescribe procedure for selection of officers from State cadre for 
post of Additional Secretary/Secr~ta1y to Government of India-Also, 
appointment to post of additional Secretaiy to Government of India was not 
a promotion for an /AS officer and therefore empanelment of a State cadre 
!AS officer to that post was not a promotion-Articles 309 and 312 of 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Appellant, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 
State cadre, was considered for but not empanelled as Additional Secretary 
to the Go\·ernment of India. Objecting to this, he filed an Original 
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This was 
dismissed on the ground that (i) the Central Staffing Scheme, formulated 
by Government oflndia resolution dated 17.10.1957, was constitutional 
and valid (ii) post of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Government 
of India was not a promotional post for an all-India Services officer of 
State cadre (iii) there were no mala fides and arbitrariness in his non-
empanetment. Against this, appellant approached the High Court. The 
275 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
High Court did not entertain the plea that the Central Staffing Scheme 
was unconstitutional, but taking the view that emplanetment to the post 
of level of Secretary to Government of India was a promotional post, it 
directed consideration of the appellant's case afresh by taking into 
consideration all relevant records such as his confidential report, dossiers, 
letters of appreciation including memories etc. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that the Central Staffing Scheme was (i) ultra 
vires Section 3 of the All India Service Act, 1951 as it did not in terms 
say that it was issued after consultation with the State Governments, like 
when it was formulated (ii) ultra vires Articles 309 and 312 of the 
Constitution as several set of Rules framed by the Central Government 
in exercise of its statutory powers under the Act occupied the whole field 
of executive discretion and therefore, by the doctrine of occupied field, 
there was no scope left for exercise of executive action outside the purview 
of these Rules (iii) arbitrary executive action for want of clear cut 
guidelines. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : l.1. The Central Staffing Scheme is neither a Rule nor 
Regulation within the meaning of Section 3 of the A II India Services Act, 
1951, nor is it possible to accept that there is no other power available 
to the executive to deal with the recruitment and conditions of service. 
(283-B-C'] 
l.2. The Central Government's executive power extends to the same 
subjects and to the same extent as that of the Parliament, as long as it 
does not infringe any provision of any rule made by the Parliament or 
F 
of the Constitution. Hence, the Central Staffing Scheme is not 
unconstitutional. (283-D, 284-A-B( 
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1955) SC 
549, relied on. 
G 
1.3. The guidelines indicated in para 14 of the Central Staffing 
Scheme are sufficiently clear enough to steer clear of the charge of 
possible arbitrary use. (285-G I 
2. Each one of the Rules framed by the Central Government in 
exercise of its statutory powers under the

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