LexUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER versus HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 755 UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER v. HEMRAJ SINGH C~:AUHAN & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2651-2652 of 2010) MARCH 23, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Service law: A B c Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 4(2) - Cadre review - Compliance of Rule 4(2) - Members of U.P. State Civil Service seeking promotion - Issuance of Notification in 2000, fixing the cadre strength of U.P. - Another Notification in 2005, re-fixing the cadre 0 strength - Challenge to, on the ground that since last cadre review of I.A. S. in UP cadre conducted in 1998, next cadre review was due in 2003, thus, cadre review conducted in 2005 to be given retrospective effect - Application set aside by tribunal - High Court setting aside the judgment of tribunal - E On appeal, held: Statutory duty cast on State and Central Government to undertake cadre review exercise every 5 years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions - Lethargy, in- action not just exceptions - On facts, both Central and State Government under Rule 4(2) accepted on principle that cadre review in U.P. was due in 2003 - Reason for delay in review F was total in-action on the part of State and lackadaisical attitude in discharging its statutory responsibility - Delayed exercise cannot be justified within the meaning of 'ordinarily'- Thus, members not responsible for the delay - Rule 4(2) will operate prospectively and not retrospectively - Directions G issued by High Court reasonable - Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - Rule 4(1)(b). 755 H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 3 S.C.R. A Words and Phrases: Word 'ordinarily' - Meaning of - In the context of Rufe 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The respondents are members of the State Civil 8 Service (S.C.S.) of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They completed eight years of service on 23.07.85 and 04.06.86 respectively. As a result of the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, notification was issued on 21.10.2000, fixing the cadre strength of State of Uttar Pradesh. On 25.08.2005, another notification was issued re-fixing the C cadre strength in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents challenged the said notification on the ground that since the last cadre review of the l.A.S. of Uttar Pradesh cadre was conducted in 1998, the next cadre review was due in 2003; and that the cadre review D conducted in August 2005 should be given retrospective effect from April 2003. The respondents also sought quashing of the notification dated 01.02.2006 whereby vacancies were increased. The tribunal held that the cadre review carried out in 2005 cannot be given E retrospective effect. The High Court set aside the order of the tribunal and also the notifications dated 25.08.2005 and 01.02.2006. It directed the State Government and the Central Government that cadre review exercise should be undertaken as if it was taking place on 30-04-2003 with F reference to the vacancy position as on 01.01.2004. Hence, the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals with certain modifications/ directions, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The authorities. who are under a statutory mandate to re-examine the strength and composition of cadre are the Central Government and the concerned State Government. On facts, it is clear that both the authorities under Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative H Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 accepted on principle that UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. HEMRAJ SINGH 757 CHAUHAN & ORS. cadre review in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003. [Paras 27 A and 34] [767-F-G; 770-C] T.N. Administrative Service Officers Association and another v. Union of India and others (2000) 5 sec 728, relied on. B 1.2. The Court must keep in mind the Constitutional obligation of both the appellants/Central Government as also the State Government. Both the Central Government and the State Government are to act as model employers, which is consistent with their role in a Welfare State. [Para C 37] (771-C] 1.3. The right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The o guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.