UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus AMRIK SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 14-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
AMRIK SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1993 
(A. M. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Ac-
counts dfficers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964: 
B 
Comptroller and Auditor GeneraHssue of Administrative instructions . C 
by--lnstrnctions relating to promotion of Section Officers in Indian Audit and 
Accounts Department-Provision in instrnctions not covered by Rules-;n-
strnctions held not inconsistent with mies-Comptroller and Auditor General 
held competent to issue instrnctions. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 148(5). Comptroller and Auditor D 
General--l'ower to issue administrative instrnctions. 
The Indian Audit & Accounts Department (Administrative Oftlcers, 
Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964 were made 
by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 and clouse (!) E 
of Article 148 of the Constitution after consulting the Comptroller & 
Autf.itor General of India. The rules contained provisions which provided 
for certain matters relating to recruitment for the posts of Administrative 
Officers, Assistant Accounts Officers and Assistant Audit Officers in the 
Indian Audit and Accounts Department. Subsequently, instructions dated 
March 21, 1978 were issued by the Comptroller & Auditor General 'or F 
India, which they also contained a provision relating to promotion of 
Section Officers in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The In· 
structions required completion of five years of service by 1st April, 1978 
by a person as a Section Officer to make him eligible for empanelment and 
consequent promotion as Accounts Officer. However, ·In the case of G 
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Section Officers, the ellglblllty period · 
for empanelment was four years or service on the crucial date. 
Respondent-I, a member or the Scheduled Caste and a Section 
Officer was not eligible for empanelment for promotion as Accounts 
Officer In the subsequent year In that he had not completed four years of H 
261 
262·· 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
service as on 1st April, 1978. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who had completed 
five years of service as Section Officers before 1st April, 1978 were am-
p&nelled and promoted as Accounts Officers. Respon~ent·l questioned 
their promotion by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana contending that (i) the instructions issued by the Comptroller 
B and Auditor General being inconsistent with the matters for which 
provisions were made in the Rules, could not have come in the way of his 
promotion as Accounts Officer though he had not put in the required 
service for eligibility for empanelment under the Instructions and (ii) the 
instructions were not issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General with 
I 
)• ' 
~, t. 
c • 
the requisite competence. A single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
C Writ Petition holding that the impugned provision in the Instructions was 
inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Rules and the Instruc-
tions issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India were without 
competence. Consequently, he issued a direction to the appellants to 
consider the case of Respondent-I for promotion to the post of Accounts 
D Officer from the date on which his claim for promotion was ignored. 
The order of the single Judge was appealed against by the Union of 
India and Accountant General, Punjab before a Division Bench of the High 
Court which was dismissed. Against the judgment of the Division Bench 
E 
of the High Court, appeal was filed in this Court. 
F 
Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and setting aside the 
orders of the High Court, this Court, 
HELD : 1~ The provision in the Instructions provides for an essential 
matter relating to service conditions of persons in the Indian Audit and 
Accounts Department in respect of which no provision is made in the 
Rules. There is no provision found in the Rules, which stipulates the 
criteria that makes a Section Officer eligible for promotion to the posts of 
Assistant Accounts Officers. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the 
G provision relating to the matter of number of years of service as Section 
Officer which makes a Section Officer eligible for empanelment and 
promotion as Accounts Officer, is that which goes against or is inconsis· 
tent with any of the provisions in the Rules, inasmuch as none of the 
pro

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