SH. ASHOK V. DAVID versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
SH. ASHOK V. DAVID 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
[G.B. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-
tions, 1955. 
C 
Seniority-State Administrative Service Officers-Satisfactorily com-
pleted probation on 14.7.1976-But confinned on J.l.1986 against vacancies 
of 1962-0fficers not considered for promotion to IAS in 1983--But certain 
officers confinned against vacancies of years subsequent to 1962 con-
sidered-However, officers, subsequently promoted to IAS pursuant to select D 
list of 1987 and given year of allotment accordingly-Held : there was ab-
solucely no cogent reason for the undue delay in confinnaJion-ln the cir-
cumstances of the case, ,the said officers entitled to year of allotment in the 
IAS as they were selected pursuant to select list prepared in 1983 and not in 
~ 
E 
Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957: Rules 5 and 9. 
Confim1ation-Undue delay in issuance of Jonna! order of-After satis-
factory completion of probation-Held : improper. 
F 
The appellants were direct recruits to the State Administrative Ser-
vice and satisfactorily completed the period of probation on 14.7.1976 but 
were confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 against vacancies which had occurred in the 
year 1962. Consequently, the appellants were not considered for promotion 
to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as per the select list prepared 
in 1983 in accordance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appoint- G 
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Certain Offiers confirmed against 
vacancies occurring in years snbsequent to 1962 were considered for 
promotion. However, the appellants were subsequently promoted to the 
1AS pursuant to a select list prepared in 1987 and given year of allotment 
accordingly. 
H 
Tl3 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants filed a petition in the Central Administrative 
Tribunal for being given the same year of allotment as was given to their 
,juniors, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred 
the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that under Rules 5 and 
B 9 of Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957, the appellants, 
after satisfactory completion of the period of probation, became due for 
confirmation; and that they could not be made to suffer due to undue delay 
in their confirmation. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. From a combined reading of Rules 5 and 9 of Mysore 
Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957 it is clear that a probationer 
cannot be treated to be a confirmed employee merely on satisfactory comple-
tion of probation till an order of confirmation W'dS passed. However, there is 
D no doubt that formal confirmation order cannot be unreasonably delayed, as 
the delay causes injury in those cases where confirmation is a pre- condition 
for getting better service condition, as was in tbe instant case. [726-B-D) 
1.2. The appellants had satisfactorily completed the period of proba-
tion on 14.7.1976. Despite this formal confirmation of the appellants was 
E ordered from l.l.1986, against vacancies which had occurred in 1962. 
F 
There was absolutely no cogent reason for this undue delay in their 
confirmation. The late confirmation of the appellants can, therefore, be 
taken as illustration of that "glorious uncertainty" relating to confirmation 
which is known in service career and is amply borne out by confirmation 
of a judicial officer as a District Judge after he had retired as a Supreme 
Court Judge. [726-D-H] 
2. There is no doubt that the appellants had become eligible for 
consideration as per the select list prepared in 1983. The respondents are 
directed to give that year of allotment to the appellants which is due to 
G them by treating that their selection for promotion to IAS had taken place, 
not pursuant to the select list prepared in 1987, but in 1983. [727-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ci,il Appeal No. 8391 of 
1996 Etc. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.93 of the Central Ad-
' 
AV. DAVID v. U.0.l. [HANSARIA,J.) 
725 
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in A. No. 329 of 1993. 
C.S. Vaidyanathan and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, A.K. Ganguli, Raju 
Ramachandran, S.R. Bhat, N.R. Nath, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj for the Appel-
lants. 
A 
M.L. Bhat, S. Wasim Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, S.K. B 
Kulkarni, K.R. Nagaraja, P. Mahale for the Respondents. 
The Judgme

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