UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus P.C. MISRA

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 02-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
P.C. MISRA 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 
B 
[S.C. f,.GRAWAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Civil Services : 
Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1971-Rules 
C 3(2), 18, 30, and 31-lntroduction of Junior Administrative Grade-Selection 
and appointment-Subsequent amendment in the Rules-Competence of 
Rule making authority and validity of the amendments. 
The Respondents joined the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 
Civil Service and were governed by the Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar 
D Islantls Civil Service Rules, 1971. Initially the service consisted of Grade-I 
(Selection Grade) and Grade II. By memorandum dated November 26, 
1987, that Government introduced one more Grade viz. Junior Administra-
tive Grade, with effect from January 1, 1986. The relevant provisions 
governing the newly created Grade were introduced by the 1988 Amend-
E 
ment in this Rules. 
The Respondents were promoted to Selection Grade and further 
appointed to different posts which later fell in the Junior Administrative 
Grade after the Rules were amended in 1988. Though the Respondents 
F 
were considered for appointment to the Junior Administrative·Grade, they 
were not selected and some of their juniors were appointed to the Junior 
Administrative Grade on 17.5.1989. The Respondents approached the 
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging their non-selection and the 
Tribunal directed that the respondents should be deemed to have been 
G regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 
1.1.1986. 
Against the Tribunal's judgment, Union of India preferred the 
present appeals. 
H 
Allowing the lippeals, this Court 
96 
U.O.I. v. P.C. MISRA 
97 
HELD: 1. The memorandum dated November 26, 1987 bas to be A 
read along with sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 of the Delhi and Andaman & 
Nicobar Civil Service Rules, 1971 and if thus read it would cover cases of 
officers who were eligible on January 1, 1986, the dated of introduction of 
the Junior Administrative Grade. Officers who fulfilled the conditions of 
eligibility contained in the said memorandum on December 31, 1985 were B 
to be appointed on the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 
January 1, 1986 on the basis of the said memorandum and the officers who 
acquired the eligibility for such appointment after December 31, 1985 
would be governed by the Rules in view of the note appended below 
sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and they could be appointed to the Junior Ad-
ministrative Grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31. Neither c 
of the respondents fulfilled the criterion for eligibility mentioned in the 
memorandum because both of them did not have four years service in 
Selection Grade on January 1, 1986. Since they could not satisfy the 
conditions of eligibility upto January l, 1986, they could not be deemed to 
have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with 
effect from January 1, 1986, the date when the Junior Administrative 
Grade was introduced. They could be appointed to the Junior Administra-
D' 
tive Grade only by way of promotion in accordance with the Rules, as 
amended by the 1988 Amendment. Their cases were duly considered for 
such promotion but they were not found suitable for appointment and were E 
not selected. The respondents have not been able to show any infirmity in 
the said selection. Since the respondents were not found suitable for 
appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade, they cannot make a 
claim on the same on the basis that their juniors were appointed to the 
Junior Administrative Grade. [103-F-H; 104-A-E] 
F 
2. The Tribunal was not correct in its view that the 1988 Amendment 
could only govern vacancies arising after the coming into force of the 1988 
Amendment and that the "vested rights and legitimate expectations" could 
not be taken away by retrospective amendment of the Rules. Since the G 
Junior Administrative Grade was introduced for the first time with effect 
from January 1, 1986 the rule making authority was competent to make 
provision for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade after it was 
introduced. Amendments introduced in rule 31 by the 1988 Amendment 
make provision for such appointments and there is no legal infirmity in H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the said provision. [104-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4414-15 
of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.92 of the Central Ad-
B minis

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