UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus VIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL SHAH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 25-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
VIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL SHAH 
OCTOBER 25, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Se1vice Law. 
Indian Administrative Seivice (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-
C tions, 1955-Regulation 5-Promotion-To Indian Administrative Seivice, 
from State Civil Se1vices--Select list for the promotion, prepared by clubbing 
vacancies of a number of years-Whether pennissible-Held, No. 
Promotion-Cliallenge of-Seeking direction for fresh consideration of 
D the case-Without impleadment of the promoted officers-Held, appointment 
of officers cannot be upset-Direction can be sought only in a way that it does 
not disturb the appointment of officers-Civil Procedure Code, 1908--0rder 
I, Rule 9. 
Respondent, a member of Gujarat Administrative Service, Class I, 
E was not considered for· promotion in Select List of 1979. The Selection 
Committee did not meet during the period 1980 to 1985, and met in 
December 1986/January 1987 and prepared consolidated Select List for the 
vacancies of the years 1980 to 1986. Respondent was not considered in this 
list also. 
F 
Respondent filed application before Central Administrative 
Tribunal, assailing the 1986/1987 Select List on the ground that it was not 
possible to club together the vacancies of the years 1980 to 1986, for the 
purpose of making selection, and that the Selection Committee should 
have met every year to J>repare a Select List for the vacancies of each year. 
G The officers who were selected in the Select List of year 1986/1987 were not 
impleaded as parties. 
The Tribunal allowed the application of the respondent, holding that 
the action of clubbing the vacancies and thereby enlarging the zone of 
H consideration could have prejudiced the respondent, and therefore, it was 
750 
... 
,. 
U.O.I. v. VJI. SHAH 
751 
illegal, and directed the appellant to prepare select list from year to year A 
from 1980 to 1986, without clubbing the vacancies in any particular year. 
Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The requirement prescribed in sub-Regulation (1) of B 
Regulation 5 regarding the Committee meeting at intervals not exceeding 
one year and preparing a list of such members of the State Civil Service 
who are suitable for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was 
a mandatory requirement which had to be followed, unless there is a 
good reason for not doing so. The failure on the part of the Selection C 
Committee to meet during a particular year would not dispense with the 
requirement of preparing the Select List for that year. If for any reason, 
the Selection Committee is not able to meet during a particular year, 
the Committee when it meets next, should, while making the Selection, 
prepare a separate list for each year keeping in view the number of D 
vacancies in that year after considering the State Civil Service Officers 
who were eligible and fall within the zone of consideration for selection 
in that year. [756-H, 757-A, 759-E] 
Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797 and E 
Syed Khalid Razvi & Ors. v. Union of India & 01:s., [1993] Suppl. 3 SCC 
575, referred to. 
1.2. In the present case, there was a failure to comply with the 
mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 of Indian Administrative Service 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The State Civil Services 
Officers who were selected in the Select List prepared in December, 
1986/January 1987, having not been impleaded as parties, their appoint-
ment to the Indian Administrative Service, cannot be upset. The respon-
dent can seek direction for consideration of his case afresh for the purpose 
F 
of inclusion in the Select List, only in a way that it does not disturb the G 
appointment of other State Civil Service Officers who have been appointed 
to the Service on the basis of the Select List of December 1986/1987. 
[759-F-H, 760-A] 
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993] Suppl. 3 
sec 575, referred to. 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
' 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4786 of 
1994. 
'O.~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in Ahmedabad in 0.A. No. 646 of 1988. 
B 
K.N. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Hemant Sharma and S.N. Terdol for the 
Appellants. 
H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep S. Parihar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The short question that falls for conside
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.