SHRI T. SHAM BHAT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 29-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHRI T. SHAM BHAT 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JULY 29, 1994 
(A.M. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Co11stitutio11 of !11dict-A1ticles 14 a11d 16-lAS (Appointmellt by Selec-
tion) Second Amendment Regulations 1989-Regulation 2 amendi11g Regula-
C tion 3(1)(ii) of the.IAS (Appointment by selection) Regulations 195&-AIS 
(Recruitment) Rules 1954--Rule 8(2}-Non-State Civil Service class I and 
class II officers classified together as belonging to common class of non- state 
Civil Service officers for deciding eligibility for selection to the IAS, whether 
constitutionaHfeld, such classificatio11 ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable and 
discriminatory and violates Anicles 14 and 16-Funher, Rules requiring per-
D sons of outstanding ability, holding substantive gazetted posts not lower than 
that of posts of Deputy Collectors (Assistant Commissioners) in State Civil 
Services, of outstanding merit and ability to be selected--Celltral Government 
. exceeded parameters or authority conferred upon it in the matter of making 
regulations-Service law. 
E 
F 
Constitution of Jndict-Alticle 14-lAS (Appointment by Selection) 
Second Amendment Regulations 1989-Regulation 2 amending Regulation 
3(1)(ii) of the !AS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 195&-Con-
tinuous period of service non- State Civil Service class I officers making them 
eligible for selection to the !AS increased from 8 years to 12 years-Whether 
constitutionaHield, since increase in number of years for eligibility was for 
no palpable reason, and deprived class I officers of the right to be considered 
for selection under regulations which held the field for 33 years, such increase 
unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and affected legitimate expectations of non-
State Civil Service class I officers and inhibited by Anicle 14-Held fu11her, 
G Regulation 2 unconstitutional-Administrative Law-Doctrine of legitimate 
expectation. 
lnte!pretation of Statutes--Severability-lAS (Appointment by Selec-
tion) Second Amendme1it Regulations 1981)-f{eld, Regulation 2 being un-
constitutional the other provisions in the Amendment Regulations which are 
H merely machinery provisions intended to give effect to Regulation 2 thereof, 
358 
T.S. BHAT». U.O.l. 
359 
cannot stan~IAS (Appointment by Selection) Second Amendment Regula-
A 
tions 1989 as a whole 1 held, unconstitutional. 
The appellant was a class I officer holding a substantive gazetted 
post on the non-State Civil Service of the Government of Karnataka, and 
his service involved duties· comparable in importance and responsibility to 
that of class I ollicers or the State Civil service. By unamended Regulation 
3(1) (ii) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) 
Regulations 1956, a non-State Civil Class I officer was required to com-
plete 8 years of continuous service in a gazetted post involving duties 
comparable in importance and responsibility to that of class I officer in 
gazette post of State Civil Service. However, before the appellant could 
become eligible under the Regulation, the !AS Second Amendment Regula-
tions 1989 came into force on 30 March, 1989 which made all non-State 
Civil Services class I Officers including the appellant ineligible for selec-
tion lo the !AS until they completed 12 years of continuous service in 
substantive gazetted posts. 
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Regulation 2 of the 
!AS Second Amendment Regulations before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal as being inhibited by Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 
The Tribunal rejected the challenge holding that, since the IAS (Recruit-
ment) Rules 1954 do not envisage selection of officers in non-State Service 
who fall below the standard of officers in State Civil Service, when class I 
and Class II officers of the non-state Civil Service are classified together 
B 
c 
D 
E 
for purposes of fixing the period of continuous service to make them 
eligible for selection to the IAS, such classification was reasonable and F 
intended to achieve the object of selecting the officers of outstanding ability 
and merit for non-State Civil Service to the IAS. 
In appeal before this Court, the increased requirement of continuous 
service from 8 years to 12 years was assailed, as also the relaxed eligibility G 
that Regulation 2 of the IAS Second Amendment Regulations provided for 
class II officers of the non- State Civil Service for selection to the IAS on 
their completion of 12 years of 

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