LexUNION OF INDIA versus DR. M.G. DIGHE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. DR. M.G. DIGHE AND ORS. AUGUST 27, 1991 B [M.H. KANIA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] Service Law: Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by . promotion) Regulations, 1955-Regulations 5( 1), (2) and (3)-lnter- pretation of-Promotion of members of State Civil Service-,--Prepara- tion of Select List of suitable officers-Selection Committee meeting on two dates-12-month period under Regulation 5 (]) to be counted from C the second date when the Committee finalised the list as per Regulation 5( 1) read with Regulation 5(2)-For purposes of Regulation 5(3), the date when the Committee first met to be reckoned. The first respondent and five other members of Madhya Pradesh D State Civil Service challenged before the Central Administrative Tri- bunal the selection of 14 officers of the State Civil Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service as illegal on the ground that the State had wrongly calculated the anticipated number of vacancies as 7 by counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955, E from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1989, instead or from March 16, 1989 to March 15, 1990, and if the latter petiod was considered as the proper period for the purposes of the said Regulation, the vacancies would be 11_ and the select list of 22 offlce..S would have to be prepared, for which 66 officers would have to be considered, and the zone of consideration would extend to the 84th officer in the seniority list, since F 18 of the 66 officers were ineligible under Regulation 5(3). On behalf of the State Government it was contended that since the meeting was first held on December 19, 1988 the period of 12 months under the Regulation S(l)" would have to be calculated from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1989 according to the previous practice of the G Government, which was that since the Committee met in the second fortnight of December, the period was to be calculated from the lst December, 1988. The Tribunal held _that neither the practice aflopted by the State Government, nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation 5(1) was H proper, and that the span of 12 months would begin from March 16, 776 . U.0.1 v. M.G. DIGHE 777 1989 and end on March IS, 1990 and directed that a Select List of 22· A officers should be prepared since during the later period, the estimated vacancies were 11, and that a Review Committee should be constituted to consider the cases of the applicants. Dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India, this Court, HELD: 1.1 The wording of the Regulation 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955, is very clear. It says "commencing from the date of preparation of the list". [779F) B 1.2 In the present case, admittedly the list which was prepared by C the Selection Committee on December 19, 1988 was not according to Regµlation 5(1) read with Regulation 5(2). Since the Selection Commit- tee had, on the basis of its estimate of seven vacancies on December 19, • 1988 considered the cases of only 30 officers when it was required to consider the cases of 42 officers, the Union Public Service Commission had returned its recommendation and asked the Selection Committee to D consider the cases of 12 m9re officers. Hence, the preparation of the Select List was not complete in December, 1988 and the Committee was required to convene a fresh· meeting on March 16, 1989, on which date alone it can be said to have prepared the select list as required by Regulation 5(1). Since the select list, as required by Regulation 5(1), was for the first time prepared on March 16, 1989, the period of 12 .months E under Regulation 5(1) had to be counted from that date. [779G-H, 780A-B) 1.3 Doring the period of 12 months from 16th March, 1989 to 15th March, 1990, the estimated vacancies were 11 and, therefore, a select list of 22 officers has to be prepared by considering the cases in all of 66 officers and extending the zone to the 84th officer in the seniority F list according to the order of seniority (18 officers out of 66 being ineligible). [780C-D) • 2. The provision of ·Regulation 5(3) speaks of the first day of January of the year "in which", the Selection Committee ''meets", unlike the language of Regulation 5(1) which speaks of "the date of the G preparation of the list". In the presen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.