UNION OF INDIA versus MOHAN SINGH RATHORE AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 02-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
MOHAN SINGH RATHORE AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, c 
Regulation 7/9-lndian Police Service-Allotment from State 
Quota-Case of respondent approved by Union Public Service Commis-
sion-State to issue "no deterioration ce1tificate" so that Union Govemment 
could issue orders-Respondent's name not included in the Cenificate-How-
ever, after his retirement State Govemment wrote to Union of India that he D 
was entitled for appointment as he was "well deserving candidate''-<:onse-
quently he could not be appointed to /PS, though he was found suitable and 
approved by UPSC-Tribunal directing his appointment-Held, T1ibunal's 
order illegal as it -had directed, without ref erring to any of the relevant rules, 
to appoint him--Hence set aside-However Union of India directed to include E 
his name in the appointment notificati :m dated October 4, 1988 as a select 
list candidate and give him the order of appointment-Respondent would be 
entitled .to all the retiral benefits 011 that basis. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12089 of 
~ 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 793 of 1992. 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, P. Par- G 
meshwaran for the Appellants. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, M.K. Singh, Ms. Kusum Sharma 
and K.S. Bhati for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
419 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
B 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The respondent was appointed in the Rajasthan State Police Service. 
He was put in the select list on December 28, 1987. The Union Public 
Service Commission had approved it on February 2, 1988. He was due to 
retire on May 31, 1988 on attaining superannuation. His name along with 
eight other candidates, was included for allotment from the State quota to 
the Indian Police Service. The requirements of tfie Indian Police Service 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, the "Promotion 
C 
Regulation") envisage that the Union Public Service Commission, under 
Regulation 7, shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with 
other documents received from the State Government and, unless it con-
siders any change necessary,.it shall approve the list. Sub-regulation (4) is 
relevant in this case which provides that the select list shall ordinarily be 
D in force until its review and revision effected under sub-regulation (4) or 
(5) is approved under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, is finally 
approved under sub-regulation (2). As per regulation 7(3), the list as finally 
approved by the UPSC shall form the select list. Proviso thereto indicates 
thus: 
E 
F 
G 
"Provided further that in the event of grave lapse in the conduct 
or performance of duties on the part of any member of the State 
Police Service included in the Select List, a special review of the 
select list may be made at a time at the instance of the State 
Government and the Commission may, if it so thinks fit, remove 
the name of such member of the State Police Service from the 
Select List." 
Regulation 9 of the Promotion Regulations, deals with appointment 
of State Police Service officers to Indian Police Service. Sub-regulation (2) 
thereof reads as under : 
"It shall not ordinarily be necessary to consult the Commission 
before such appointments are made, unless during the period 
intervening between the inclusion of the name of a member of the 
State Police Service in the Select List and the date of the proposed 
H 
appointment there occurs any deterioration in the work of the 
U.0.l.v. M.S.RATI!ORE 
421 
member of the State Police Service or there is any other ground A 
which, in the opinion of the State Government or the Central 
Government, is such as to render him unsuitable for appointment 
to the service." 
While making recommendation, the State Government is required to 
furnish in this regard the "no deterioration certificate" of the selected 
candidates as per the letter No. 11/4/73-AIS(l) dated May 22, 1973 of the 
Union of India, Administrative Reforms of the Department of Personnel 
which has been made part of the Promotion Regulations as decision No. 9 
which reads as under : 
"Having regard to the provision contained in the proviso to

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