STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ETC. versus SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 19-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
E 
l:l 
249 
v. 
SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR ETC. ETC. 
April 19, 1972 
[K. S. l!EGDE, A. N. GROVER AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Consti1ulion of Jndia-,Art. 3()9 and the 
Punjab 
Civil 
Secretariat 
(State Service Class Jll°) Rules, 1952 made thcrmnder, if can be modified 
by admi.nislrative instructions issued by the State Govt.-Whether ~·uch 
modifications require appwval of the Central 
Government under s.115 
of the States' Re-organization Act, 1956. 
The facts in these appeals are similar and the facts in C.A. No. 1639 
of 1968. are· as follows :-S. the Respondent, joined Govt. service as a 
clerk in Ovil Secretariat of the. erstwhile Pepsu State. Pepsu state became 
a part of the State of Punjab in 1956 under the provisions of the States' 
Reorganisation . .Act 1956. S. was· provisionally promoted as an Assistant 
in the Punjab Civil Secretariat but later, was reverted as a clerk on the 
ground that he failed to qualify the te•t prescribed under certain adminis·· 
trative instructio11s inuaa ~y the State Govt. He filed a civil suit challeng-
ing his reversion. 
The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate 
court aJso affirmed the decree. 
'fhe High Court. howe•-"er dismiso;ed tht· 
second appeal filod· by the State. 
It was contended before this Court that the appellants at the relevant 
time, was governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Sorvice Class 
III) Rules, 1952 and Rule 6 whi<'/l regulated the appointment of Assistants 
by promotion, provided that posts in the service shall be filled in the case 
of assistants by. promotion of senior clerks or by selection from other 
government official. 
In 1958, State Government issued instroctions that 25 per cant of the 
vacancies in the cadre of Assistants in the Punjab Civil Secretariat will be 
filled by appointment of suitable personnel from other departments and 
the remaining 75 per cent will be filled by promotion from amongst the 
clerks in the Punjab _Civil' Secretadat. 
The order further provided that 
for the purpose of appointment as assistants, the officials will have to sit 
for a test. Two questions arose for decision in the present case :-(a) 
Whether the G.ovt. was competent to add by means of administrative ins-
tructions to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules framed unc!er 
Art. 309 and (\l) Whether such an addition requires the approval of the 
Central Govt. under S. I 15 of the States Reorganisation Act, 195'6. 
Dis-
missing the appeals. 
HELD : 
( 1) The Government is not competent to alter the rules 
framed under Art. 309 by me.ans of administrative instructions. 
In Sant 
Rmn Sharma v. fkate of Rajasthan and another, [1968] 1 S.C.R:. I 11 It 
was decided th~t while the go,·emment cannot amend or supersede 
tlte 
statutory rules by administrative instructions,, if the. rules are silent on any 
particular point, the Govt, can fill. up the gaps, not inconsistent with the 
rules already framed. 
In the µresent' case, the Rules can be. implemented 
Without• any dift!cultv·and· there· is no gap· in the Rules. The impugned ins-
tmcliwts alter· the rulCI! relating. to promotion. 
Hence the 
instructions 
in. q11fl!ti011 ar;> void, 
[75'&.Bl. 
17-1208SupCl/72 
250 
SUPREME COUR :· REPORTS 
[1973] l S.C.R. 
(2) The approval of the Central Government had also not been ob-
tained for issuing those instructions in terms of proviso to sub-s. (7) of 
s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and therefore, the instruc-
tions are invalid. 
Mohammad Bhakar and ors. v. Y. Krishna Reddy and ors. 
(1970) 
Service Law Reporter u768, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1639 to 
1641 of 1968. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated De!;ember 14, 1967 
of the Punjab amd Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeals 
Nos. 357, 359 and 418 of 1967 respectively and Civil Appeals 
Nos. 31 and 1279 of 1969. 
Appeals from the judgmellts and orders dated March 22, 1968 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 536 of 
1966 and 836 of 1967 and Civil Appeals No. 2227 of 1969. 
Appeal ijy special leave from the order dated February 17, 1969 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal 
No. 1624 of 1968. 
Bishan Narain and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. 
Nos. 1639 to 1641 of 1968). 
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in C.A. 
No. 31 of 1969). 
A 
B 
c 
D 
K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in C.A. 
E 
No. 1279 of 1969). 
M. C. Chagla and R. N. Sachth

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