UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus S. THIAGARAJAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 15-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNlON PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. 
S. THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 15, 2007 
B 
I 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law.: 
Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966; 
C r.5 with amendnu:nt effected vide Notification dated 31.12.1997: 
Promotion-~Non-inclusion of Deputy.Conservator of Forest/State Forest 
Service Officer in select list for promotion to Jndian Forest Service but 
inclusion of tainted officers therein-Correctness of-Held: Both the Courts 
D below overlooked relevant provisions under the Regulations and also effect 
of amendment made in Regulations-Selection conducted strictly in 
accordance with statutory regulations and in terms of clarification issued by 
Government of Jndia in connection thereof-Names of tainted officers included 
provisionally in select list in terms of r.5(4)-Courts below, thus, erred in 
holding that names of such officers should not have been included-Moreover, 
E incumbent officer's name was duly considered by the Selection Committee, he 
was not included in the select list as Officers having better grading available 
and also due to statutory limit on the size of the select list-Hence, orders 
of Courts below vitiated-Orders also liable to be set aside on ground of 
non-impleadment of necessary parties. 
F 
Selection of IFS from State Forest Service Officers-Selection 
~ 
I 
procedure-Effect of amendment-Discussed. 
'f- -. 
G 
H 
Name of the first respondent, Deputy Conservator of Forest, a State 
Forest Service Officer was not included in the select list, for promotion to 
the Indian Forest Service. He made a representation, which was rejected by 
the authority concerned. Against this rejection the first respondent filed an 
0.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the 
Tribunal. Against the order of the Tribunal the appellant, Union Public Service 
Commission, filed a writ petition before the High Court. Agreeing on the view 
taken by the Tribunal, High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the 
724 
U.P.S.C. v. S. TH!AGARAJAN 
725 
present appeal. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. Both the High Court and the Tribunal overlooked the fact 
that the selection of State Forest Services Officers for promotion to the Indian 
Forest Service are governed by the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) B 
Regulations, which are statutory in nature. They did not also take. into account 
the fact that the IFS Promotion Regulations were amended vide notification 
dated 31.12.1997, effective from 1.1.1998 bringing about certain changes. 
(Para - 11 I (728-E, Fl 
1.2. Appellant conducted the selections strictly in accordance with the C 
statutory regulations and orders issued by the Government of India, and hence 
there was neither any· infirmity nor arbitrariness involved in the selection, 
nor was the procedure adopted by the Selection Authority dubious and 
questionable as held by the High Court. (Para -12) (n8-G, H) 
2.1. Since the definition of the word 'year' underwent a change after D 
the amendment of the Regulations, there was a transition period between the 
ceasing of the effect of the old Regulations and the coming into effect of the 
amended Regulations. Under the pre-amended Regulations, select lists were 
to be prepared on a financial year basis whereas after the amendment, select 
lists were to be prepared on a calendar year basis. In view of this, after E 
preparation of the selection list of 1996-97, the next selection list would be 
for the year 1998. As such, there would not be any select list prepared for 
the period April, 1997 to December, 1997. In order to safeguard the interest 
oftliose officers who would thus be adversely affected by the transition period 
from April, 1997 to December, 1997 during which no select list would be 
prepared, the Government oflndia issued special instructions. (Para -16) 
F 
(730-C, D, E) 
2.2. As regards the inclusion of tainted officers in the select list of 
1998, the High Court and Tribunal did not notice that provisional inclusion 
of these officers in the select list was done as per the express provision of the 
Promotion Regulations i.e. Regulation 5(4). (Para - 18) (731-G) 
G 
2.3. If an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending is 
considered by the Selection Committee, his name is included in the select 
list provisionally, if he is otherwise found suitable for inclusion. He cannot 
be appointed to the IFS till his inclusion is d

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