UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus DR. S. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 26-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DR. S. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT ANDS. RATNAVEL 
PANDIAN, JJ.] 
All India Services Act, 1954--Jndian Forest Service (Regulation 
of Seniority) Rules, 1968-Rules 3(2)(d)-Whether ultra vires-Reser-
vation for ECO and SSCO and year of allotment fixation-Whether 
legal and valid. 
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954--
J(J)(c) (d)-Whether ultra vires-ECO and SSCO-Reservation for 
fixation of year of allotment-Whether legal and valid. 
A 
B 
c 
The grievance of the respondents who have been recruited to 
D 
Indian Forest Service and the Indian Police Service is that although the 
Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short Service Commissioned 
Officers in Short ECOS & SSCOS respectively have been recruited 
after the respondents yet their year of appointment has been fixed 
earlier than the year of allotment of the respondents under rule 3(2)(d) 
of the IFS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968 & Clauses (c) & (d) of 
E 
sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of LP.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 
which is retrospective in operation. The Tribunal struck down the rules 
as ultra vies of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Both the High Court 
and the Tribunal have taken the view that although Section 3 of the All 
India Services (Amendment) Act, 1975 validates the impugned rules 
purporting to have been made with retrospective effect, yet the 
F 
impugned rules are invalid in as much as they prejudicially, affect the 
interests of the respondents. 
While allowing the appeals and disagreeing with High Court and 
the Tribunal, this Court, 
HELD: The Tribunal has struck down the impugned rules, 
namely rule 3(2)(d) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Senio-
rity) Rules, 1968 and clauses (c) and (d) of sub-rule (J) of Rule 3 of the 
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 as ultra vires 
G 
cL 
Articles 14 and 16. Office Memorandum dated January 29, 1966 pro-
vides for the rehabilitation of the ECOS and SSCOs recruited since 
H 
275 
B 
c 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
November 1, 1962 after their release from the Armed Forces. The 
contents of the Memorandum are in the nature of executive instruc-
tions. [277D: 282B; 286B] 
Although the impugned rules were not in existance in l 966 the 
executive instructions as contained in the Office Memorandum confer-
red the same benefit as conferred by the impugned rules. In other 
words, it is apparent that the executive instructions have now been 
adopted as rules framed under the Act. [286E] 
The Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short 
Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1967 
framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 and 
clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution of India, contained similar 
provisions as to the seniority and pay of ECOS & SSC Os. [286F] 
No invidious discrimination has been made between the ECOs & 
SSC Os on the one hand and the respondents on the other, both as 
regard the Indian Forest Service and Indian Police Service, as 
D contended. [290E] 
As soon as it is found that the ECOs and SSCOs have been clas-
sified into a distinct and separate class and that such classification is 
reasonable, no objection can be taken to the year of allotment given to 
them in accordance with the impugned rules. Disagreeing with the High 
E Court and the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that no illegality has 
been committed by the Government in framing the impugned rules with 
retrospective effect. Held that the impugned rules are quite legal and 
valid. [290G-H; 291A] 
.. 
It is now a settled principle of law that if the statute under which a 
· 1
F 
rule is framed does not confer on the authority concerned the power to 
make such a rule with retrospective effect, the authority will have no 
power to frame any rule with retrospective effect. [280F] 
A. Janaradhana v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 936, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
G 
4068-70 of 1989 etc. etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.88 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Appln. Nos. 991-993 of 1988. 
For the appearing parties: 
F 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Anil Dev Singh, 
..
U.0.J. v. S.K. MURTHY {DUTT, J.] 
277 
U.R. Lalit, C. V. Subba Rao, T.C. Sharma, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.S. 
Vaidyanathan, S.R. Selia, S.R. Bhat, Mrs. V.D. Khanna,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.