Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jaswant Singh vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 26 November, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1394/2025
Reserved on: 08.10.2025
Pronounced on:26.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Jaswant Singh
(Aged about 57 years)
Son of Shri Birbal Singh Yadav
D-10/101, Chitrakoot Scheme,
Jaipur-302021 (Rajasthan).
(By Advocate: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
(Through the Secretary)
Department of Personnel and Training Ministry of
Personnel, PG and Pension, Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Government of Rajasthan
(Through the Chief Secretary Rajasthan Secretariat
Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan).
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned regulations and Notification dated 23.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-A-1) issued by the DoPT/ respondent No.1 herein upto the extent these have been made applicable and enforceable with effect from the date of their publication i.e., 23.07.2024 vide Regulation 1 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 (ANNEXURE-A-2) pass by the respondent No. 1 and issue necessary directions thereby directing the DoPT/respondent No. 1 to make the Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024 (ANNEXURE-
A-1) applicable and enforceable with effect from December, 2023 and/or from any other date in the year 2023 thereby bringing the applicant in the zone of consideration for promotion to the Cadre of Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order thereby directing the DoPT/respondent No. 1 to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the post in the Cadre of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) irrespective to his crossing the age of 56 years on 01.10.2023 inasmuch as there has been an unexplained and unjustified delay purely at the hands of DoPT/respondent No.1 in taking a decision on IAS cadre review proposal submitted by the State of Rajasthan on 22.06.2021 (ANNEXURE-A-9).
(iv) Any other relief, order or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal considers just and fit may also be passed in the interest of justice."
3The facts in a nutshell:-
2. The applicant herein is an officer of the State Civil Service (SCS), i.e. the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), who contends that he has been deprived of his promotion into IAS due to the stated delay and inaction caused by the respondent department in carrying out the quinquennial cadre review of IAS of Rajasthan cadre in a timely manner in violation of Rule 4 (2) of the IAS (Cadre Rules) 1954, which reads as under:-
"Rule 4(2):
The Central Government shall, ordinarily at the interval of every five years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such Cadre in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit."
3. The applicant states that the last quinquennial cadre review of Rajasthan IAS cadre took place and was notified on 27.12.2016 and thus it was due to be reviewed and notified in December, 2021 but the same was not reviewed on time and could be notified only on 23.07.2024 after a delay of more than 30 months.
4. It is seen that the process of quinquennial review was initiated by the letter dated 21.12.2020 from the Home 4 Secretary, Govt. of India to the Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Govt., requesting the latter to expedite submission of IAS cadre review proposals to the Central Govt. at least 6 months before the due date of the cadre review. Accordingly, the Govt. of Rajasthan sent the quinquennial cadre review of IAS cadre to the GOI vide proposal letter dated 22.06.2021.
5. The respondent no. 1 sought certain clarifications from the Govt. of Rajasthan by writing a letter dated 27.07.2021 and the State Govt. had submitted those clarifications by their letter dated 16.08.2021. The respondent no. 1/DoPT again wrote to the Govt. of Rajasthan vide letter dated 18.01.2022 to undertake a detailed review and re-examined the proposal in light of the points raised in the said letter. Thereafter, State Govt. of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 02.02.2022 reiterated its proposal and requested to approve the original proposal sent in June, 2021.
6. The respondent no. 1/DoPT once again vide its letter dated 26.05.2022 wrote to the State Govt. of Rajasthan to review and re-examine its proposal considering certain facts and points and thereafter State Govt. of Rajasthan vide their letter dated 25.07.2022 again reiterated their 5 earlier proposal and once again requested to approve the original proposal sent in June 2021.
7. The Respondent no. 1/DoPT convened a meeting under the Chairmanship of JS (S&V) on 17.09.2021 with the State Govt. of Rajasthan to discuss the matter and this was followed up with the letter dated 17.09.2021 from the DoPT to the State Govt. requesting the latter to reexamine the proposal and send a revised proposal to them. The State Govt. vide letter dated 20.10.2021 submitted clarifications, which were examined by the DoPT and it was found that certain discrepancy still existed in the proposal. Therefore, DoPT sent another letter dated 18.01.2022 to the State Govt. requesting them to undertake a detailed review by re-examining the proposal in the light of the observations made by Respondent No. 1/DoPT. The State Govt. of Rajasthan vide letter dated 02.02.2022 reiterated the same proposal without any modification and the DoPT vide their letter dated 26.05.2022 again pointed out discrepancies in the proposal and requested to re-examine the same. Therefore, vide letter dated 25.07.2022, the State Govt. of Rajasthan furnished clarifications for the discrepancies observed by the DoPT and again reiterated the same proposal for increase in 29 Senior Duty Posts 6 (SDPs). In this regard, a meeting was held on 23.08.2022 under the Chairpersonship of Secretary (Personnel) followed by a letter dated 24.08.2022 sent by the DoPT/Respondent No. 1 to State Govt. requesting them to re-examine the proposal in terms of the discussion held with the Secretary (P) during the meeting held on 24.08.2022. Subsequently vide letter dated 08.09.2022, State Govt. again reiterated its request to approve the earlier cadre review proposal wherein the State Govt. had proposed for an increased in 29 SDPs due to its developmental needs, growth in population, large geographical area, increased in its budget size etc.
8. The respondent no.1/DoPT examined the proposal of the State Govt. of Rajasthan dated 08.09.2022 and subsequently placed before the cadre review committee for consideration all of which consumed for some time and finally forwarded the proposal for the concurrence of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, who holds the portfolio of DoPT/Respondent No. 1 on 31.01.2023.
9. Thereafter with the concurrence of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the respondent no. 1/DoPT notified the increase in 10 SDPs from existing 170 to 180 (i.e. 5.88% increase in SDP) and notified the proposal on 23.07.2024. 7
10. Meanwhile, due to the protracted correspondence entered into between the State of Rajasthan and GOI and inaction of the respondent no. 1, the applicant herein had crossed the age limit of 56 years on 01.10.2023 rendering him ineligible for consideration for elevation into IAS as envisaged in Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotions) Regulations, 1955 which reads as under:-
"5 (3) : The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 56 years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared:
Provided that a member of the State Civil Service whose name appears in the Select List prepared for the earlier year before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has not been appointed to the service only because he was included provisionally in that Select List shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee, even if he has in the meanwhile, attained the age of fifty six years.
Provided further that a member of the State Civil Service who has attained the age of fifty six years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of January of the year or any of the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years under item (b) of the proviso to sub-regulation (1).
5 (3A) The Committee shall not consider the case of such member of the State Civil Service who had been included in an earlier select list and:8
(a) had expressed his unwillingness for appointment to the service under regulation 9;
Provided that he shall be considered for inclusion in the Select List, if before the commencement of the year, he applies in writing, to the State Government expressing his willingness to be considered for appointment to the service;
(b) was not appointed to the service by the Central Government under regulation 10."
He submits that the delay in cadre review is entirely on the part of the respondent no. 1/GOI and that too without any reasonable and justifiable cause which has caused serious loss, injury and injustice to the applicant and his legal and fundamental rights have been infringed.
11. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof. Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:-
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Original Application has been filed assailing the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024, notified vide G.S.R. 444(E) dated 23.07.2024, to the extent they have been 9 made applicable prospectively from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. It is contended that the said Regulations, issued by Respondent No.1 / Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in consultation with Respondent No.2/State of Rajasthan, have arbitrarily deprived the applicant of his rightful and legitimate consideration for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
13. It is submitted that by the impugned amendment, the total authorised strength of the Rajasthan IAS Cadre has been fixed at 332 posts, out of which 231 posts are earmarked for direct recruitment and 101 posts for promotion in terms of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1984. The grievance of the applicant, a Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) officer of the 1997 batch, is that he was fully eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the IAS but has been unjustly deprived of such opportunity solely due to the inordinate delay and inaction on the part of Respondent No.1.
14. Learned counsel submits that under Regulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, a member of the State Civil Service remains eligible for 10 consideration for promotion only until he attains the age of 56 years as on the first day of the year of consideration. Further, under Rule 4(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the IAS cadre is required to be reviewed every five years. The last cadre review for the State of Rajasthan was notified on 27.12.2016, and the next review was thus due in December 2021. However, despite repeated requests by the State Government, Respondent No.1 failed to undertake the mandatory cadre review within the stipulated period. The cadre review was ultimately completed only after an unexplained and wholly unjustified delay of over 30 months, culminating in the impugned notification dated 23.07.2024, which has been given prospective effect.
15. It is submitted that during this prolonged and unwarranted delay, the applicant crossed the age threshold of 56 years on 01.10.2023, thereby rendering him ineligible for promotion through no fault of his own. The applicant cannot be penalised for the lethargic, negligent, and arbitrary conduct of Respondent No.1 in failing to discharge its statutory obligation of timely cadre review. This delay has caused grave injustice, prejudice, and violation of the applicant's legal and fundamental rights, 11 particularly when his juniors are now being considered for promotion pursuant to the impugned Regulations.
16. He further submits that the applicant had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 258/2025, which was disposed of on 21.01.2025 with a direction to Respondent No.1 to decide his representation dated 24.10.2024. However, Respondent No.1 rejected the representation vide order dated 04.02.2025, without assigning any sustainable reasons and without addressing the core issue of delay attributable to the authorities. The rejection order does not dispute the applicant's seniority, eligibility, or suitability; rather, it merely asserts that retrospective application of cadre review is impermissible-- in complete disregard of the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290, which holds otherwise. He is relying upon the following paragraphs from the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra):-
"11. In those OAs the substance of the contention of the respondents was that the last cadre review of the IAS in Uttar Pradesh cadre was conducted in 1998 and the next cadre review was therefore due in April 2003. As such, it was contended that the cadre review which 12 was conducted in August 2005 should have been given effect from April 2003 so that the respondents could be considered for promotion against the promotion quota.
12. The stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh before CAT was that with the issuance of Notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training on 21-10-2000 bifurcating the cadre of undivided Uttar Pradesh to IAS, Uttar Pradesh and IAS, Uttaranchal upon the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, cadre review has already taken place and as such the next review was due in 2005 only. The stand of the appellants both before CAT and before the High Court was that the cadre review was due in 2003.
13. However, CAT after hearing the parties upheld the contention of the State of Uttar Pradesh and held that the cadre review carried out in 2005 cannot be given retrospective effect. The Tribunal dismissed OA No. 1097 of 2006 and partially allowed OA No. 1137 of 2006, inter alia, directing the respondents to convene the meeting of DPC Selection Committee to fill up the posts which were not filled up in the years 2001, 2002 and 2004 and to consider all eligible SCS officers in the zone of consideration including the officers who were put in the select list of those years but could not be appointed in the absence of integrity certificate.
14. However, the respondents being aggrieved by the judgment of CAT filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court on 18-12-2006 contending therein that the cadre review of the IAS of Uttar Pradesh cadre was due in 2003 and was delayed by the State of Uttar Pradesh as a result of which some of the SCS officers were deprived of their promotion to the IAS. Their specific stand in the writ petition was that if the increased vacancies were available in 2004 as a result of the cadre review in 2003, they could have been promoted to IAS.
15. However, before the High Court the stand of the Central Government was that the cadre review of the IAS of Uttar Pradesh cadre was due in 2003 but unfortunately it was held in 2005 when the State of Uttar Pradesh had sent its proposal. Such review was made effective from 25-8-2005 when the revised cadre 13 strength of the IAS cadre of Uttar Pradesh was notified in the Official Gazette in terms of the statutory provisions. The further stand of the appellants was that the cadre review undertaken in 2005 cannot be given retrospective effect."
The learned counsel also states that the Hemraj Singh Chauhan's case (supra) discussed whether the cadre review has to be prospective from the date of its notification or retrospective in the following paragraphs:-
31. In the "better affidavit" which was filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh before the High Court, in Para 8, the stand taken is as follows:
"... In this view of the matter, since the last 'Quinquennial Cadre Review' of the IAS cadre was held on 30-4-1998, the next 'Quinquennial Cadre Review' of the IAS cadre became due on 30-4-2003 as stated by the Cadre Controlling Authority in Para 9 of its counter-affidavit."
32. It is thus clear that both the authorities under Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules accepted in principle that cadre review in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003.
33. Appearing for the appellants the learned counsel urged that the judgment of the High Court insofar as it seeks to give a retrospective effect to the cadre review is bad inasmuch as the stand of the appellants is that the Notification dated 25-8-2005 makes it explicitly clear that the same comes into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Relying on the said notification, it has been urged that since the same has been made explicitly prospective and especially when the rule in question, namely, Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules is expressly prospective in nature, the cadre review exercise 14 cannot be made retrospective. This seems to be the only bone of contention on the part of the appellants.
34. However, from the discussion made hereinbefore, the following things are clear:
(a) Both the appellants and the State Government in accordance with their stand in the subsequent affidavit accepted that cadre review in the State of Uttar Pradesh was made in 1998 and the next cadre review in that State was due in 2003;
(b) Neither the appellants nor the State Government has given any plausible explanation justifying the delay in cadre review;
(c) From the materials on record it is clear that the appellant as the Cadre Controlling Authority repeatedly urged the State Government to initiate the review by several letters referred to hereinabove;
(d) The only reason for the delay in review, in our opinion, is that there was total inaction on the part of the Uttar Pradesh Government and lackadaisical attitude in discharging its statutory responsibility.
35. 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.
The learned counsel also quotes the following paragraphs from Hemraj Singh Chauhan's judgment (supra) to 15 buttress his point that the word 'ordinarily' means that the review exercise has to be done within the stipulated time frame:-
"39. The learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the statutory mandate of a cadre review exercise every five years is qualified by the expression "ordinarily". So if it has not been done within five years that does not amount to a failure of exercise of a statutory duty on the part of the authority contemplated under the Rule.
40. This Court is not very much impressed with the aforesaid contention. The word "ordinarily" must be given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. In the case in hand the word "ordinarily" has been used in the context of promotional opportunities of the officers concerned. In such a situation the word "ordinarily" has to be construed in order to fulfil the statutory intent for which it has been used.
41. The word "ordinarily", of course, means that it does not promote a cast-iron rule, it is flexible (see Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] at SCC p. 682, para 35). It excludes something which is extraordinary or special (Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2001) 1 SCC 315] at SCC p. 319, para 6). The word "ordinarily" would convey the idea of something which is done "normally"
(Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra [(1974) 1 SCC 128] at SCC p. 134, para 12) and "generally" subject to special provision (Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 4 SCC 350 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 710] at SCC p. 354).
42. Concurring with the aforesaid interpretative exercise, we hold that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a given case. Surely 16 lethargy, inaction, an absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within the category of just exceptions.
*** *** ****
47. Therefore, this Court accepts the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rule 4(2) cannot be construed to have any retrospective operation and it will operate prospectively. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can, especially having regard to its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, give suitable directions in order to mitigate the hardship and denial of legitimate rights of the employees."
17. It is submitted that the reasoning adopted by Respondent No.1 is arbitrary, misconceived, and contrary to the settled legal position that an officer cannot be deprived of his legitimate right of consideration for promotion due to administrative delay, inaction, or indifference. The applicant's case squarely falls within the principles laid down in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that cadre reviews must be conducted in a timely manner and that administrative delays cannot be permitted to prejudice eligible officers.
18. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant is entitled to consideration for promotion by giving retrospective effect to 17 the cadre review, at least from the year 2023, so that the applicant's right of consideration is duly restored and the injustice caused to him is effectively remedied. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:-
19. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the assertions in the counter reply, submits that the Parliament, in exercise of the powers under Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution of India, enacted the All India Services Act, 1951, to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the All India Services, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Section 3 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to frame rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of members of the IAS. Rule 3(1) clearly provides that the Central Government may, after consulting the State Governments and by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service.
20. In pursuance of this statutory authority, the Central Government framed the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Cadre Review for all three All India Services--IAS, IPS and IFS--is undertaken by the 18 Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), which is the nodal authority. Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules governs the strength and composition of State cadres. Rule 4(1) stipulates that the strength and composition of each cadre shall be as determined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. Under Rule 4(2), the Central Government is to re-examine the cadre strength ordinarily every five years, again in consultation with the State Government, and make such alterations as it considers fit. The first proviso to Rule 4(2) clarifies that nothing in the sub-rule restricts the Central Government from altering the cadre strength at any time.
21. It is submitted that Regulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 prescribes an upper age limit of 56 years for consideration of State Civil Service officers for induction. The provisos carve out narrow exceptions relating to officers provisionally included in earlier select lists. The applicant's plea that he became age-barred on account of delay in cadre review thus directly implicates this provision.
22. The respondents submit that the applicant's allegation of delay or lethargy on the part of the Department is unfounded. The cadre review process is a 19 multi-layered, multi-stakeholder exercise initiated by the State Government itself. The State must submit a proposal in prescribed format with detailed justifications for encadrement, decadrement, or retention of posts. DoPT examines the proposal and places it before the Cadre Review Committee (CRC), comprising the Secretary (Personnel), Secretary (Expenditure), the senior-most member of the service/cadre concerned and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. The CRC evaluates the proposal keeping in view functional requirements, availability of officers, vacancy positions and financial implications. Only after these stages is the draft notification prepared and approved for publication.
23. In the present case, every step taken by the Department demonstrates diligence. The last cadre review for the Rajasthan IAS Cadre took place in December 2016 and the next review became due in 2021. The State Government initially submitted its proposal in June 2021, recommending an increase of 29 Senior Duty Posts (SDPs). The proposal contained several discrepancies, on which repeated clarifications were sought by DoPT. Multiple meetings were convened, but the State reiterated the same proposal several times without satisfactorily addressing the 20 discrepancies. After extensive scrutiny and prolonged correspondence, the proposal was finally placed before the CRC, approved with a reduced increase of 10 SDPs, and notified on 23.07.2024 as the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024 [G.S.R. 444(E)]. Thus, the respondents submit that at no stage did the Department delay or default in its statutory obligations.
24. The respondents further clarify that cadre review is purely an administrative mechanism for long-term cadre management. It is not intended to serve as a tool for generating or improving promotional avenues for individuals. Cadre strength may increase or decrease depending on functional requirements; it is not meant to be implemented retrospectively; and individual officers may or may not benefit from the outcome. To eliminate any ambiguity in this regard, the Central Government has expressly amended Rule 4(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 through Notification G.S.R. 750(E) dated 17.10.2023, inserting a further proviso that:
"the strength and composition of each cadre shall be applicable only prospectively from the date of notification in the Official Gazette."21
This statutory amendment fortifies the principle that cadre review has only prospective application and cannot be given retrospective effect to create vacancies or confer advantage upon any individual officer.
25. The respondents rely on authoritative judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan case (supra) has unambiguously ruled that Rule 4(2) cannot be construed retrospectively and must operate prospectively. The Court in that case invoked Article 142 only due to exceptional circumstances and absence of explanation for delay. Whereas in the instant case, the respondents have clearly explained the various steps taken by them in a timely manner as part of the quinquennial review process. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 39886/2015 titled M. Jayaraman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
reiterated that cadre review is an administrative function, cannot be retrospectively applied, and is not intended to provide promotional avenues merely because ex-cadre posts existed for long.
26. As regards the Select List of 2023 for induction into IAS, Rajasthan Cadre, the respondents state that vacancies were correctly determined as on 01.01.2024. The zone of 22 consideration comprised 33 officers, of whom 11 were recommended based on grading and assessment. The applicant, at Serial No. 18, fell below the last recommended officer and was therefore not selected. The Select List was duly notified on 13.09.2024, well before the applicant's representation dated 24.10.2024. There is no provision for review of a select list once prepared and acted upon. Re- opening it would violate the statutory scheme.
27. The respondents caution that granting the relief sought by the applicant would disrupt cadre structures across States, trigger similar claims nationwide, necessitate re-determination of select lists, and create administrative chaos across IAS, IPS and IFS cadres. Retrospective cadre review or retrospective vacancy creation would unsettle seniority structures and undermine the statutory framework governing All India Services.
28. Learned counsel submits that the cadre review of IAS Rajasthan Cadre was conducted strictly in accordance with statutory provisions, administrative requirements and judicial precedents. No delay or mala fide can be attributed to the respondents. The applicant has no vested right to induction or promotion, nor can the cadre review process be moulded to suit individual expectations. The Original 23 Application is therefore devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Discussion:
29. We have heard the counsels from both the sides patiently and with their assistance have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
30. The starting point in this OA is the Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which is as hereunder envisages a quinquennial cadre review:-
"Rule 4(2):
The Central Government shall, ordinarily at the interval of every five years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such Cadre in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit."
31. The issue to be adjudicated here is the interpretation of the word 'ordinarily' figuring in the above Rule 4(2), the respondents are stating that the word "ordinarily" means that there is no cast-iron rule that the cadre review must be completed within five years. It may extend beyond five years due to administrative exigencies and the applicant is also relying on the same paragraphs to contend that the word "ordinarily" means that the respondents ought to complete the quinquennial review once in every five years 24 in the normal course subject to just exceptions, and that such just exceptions do not cover lethargy or inaction on the part of respondent No.1. In order to interpret the word 'ordinarily' and ascertain whether there could be just exceptions, we have done an analysis of the time line involved in completing the cadre review resulting in increase of SDPs from 170 to 180 for the State Cadre of Rajasthan.
32. Our analysis reveals that although the process has started well in time on 21.12.2020 when a letter was written by the Home Secretary, Govt. of India to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, the latter has taken six months (first delay of six months) to send the cadre review proposal vide their letter dated 22.06.2021. Similar analysis of the time line with reference to the time taken by the respondent no. 1 to complete the cadre review proposal reveals that there has been a second delay of three months between 20.10.2021 to 18.01.2022 and a third delay of nearly four months between 02.02.2022 to 26.05.2022 and a fourth delay of five months from 08.09.2022 to 31.01.2023 and finally a fifth delay of eighteen months between 31.01.2023 to 23.07.2024. The first out of the five delays is on the part of the State Govt. of Rajasthan and 25 the remaining four delays are on the part of respondent no.
1. Although, the respondents have detailed the activities involved in the quinquennial review/process, the respondent no. 1 has not been able to rationally explain four delays, more particularly, the inordinate delay of eighteen months from 31.01.2023 to 23.07.2024, when the proposal was sent by the DOPT to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, who holds the portfolio for DOPT on 31.01.2023 and could obtain the concurrence of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and notify the cadre review proposal only on 23.07.2024 which period has not been explained rationally. The respondent no. 2 has also tried to gloss over the initial delay of six months caused by them merely stating in their counter reply that they have sent the proposal on 22.06.2021, six months before cadre review was due in 2021.
33. We find that both the applicant and the respondents ironically are relying upon the same Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra) to buttress their point of view regarding interpretation of the word 'ordinarily'.
26
34. In the said Hemraj Singh Chauhan case (supra), we see that the last cadre review of the IAS in the Uttar Pradesh cadre was conducted in 1998 and, therefore, the next cadre review was due in April 2003. However, the cadre review could be conducted only in August 2005, and the applicant in the Hemraj Singh Chauhan case (supra) contended that it should be given effect from April 2003 instead of August 2005. Initially, the applicant therein lost the case before the C.A.T. and thereafter filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court on 18.12.2006 which ruled in favour of the applicant and when the GOI took it in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the latter confirmed the orders of the Hon'ble High Court.
35. This point regarding the interpretation of the word 'ordinarily' has also been discussed in the paras 41 & 42 of Hemraj Singh Chauhan's judgment (supra), which are as follows:-:-
"41. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the statutory mandate of a cadre review exercise every five years is qualified by the expression `ordinarily'. So if it has not been done within five years that does not amount to a failure of exercise of a statutory duty on the part of the authority contemplated under the Rule.
42. This Court is not very much impressed with the aforesaid contention. The word `ordinarily' must be 27 given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. In the case in hand the word `ordinarily' has been used in the context of promotional opportunities of the Officers concerned. In such a situation the word `ordinarily' has to be construed in order to fulfill the statutory intent for which it has been used."
After this decisive observation from Hon'ble Apex Court, we have nothing more to add to it.
36. We find that the learned counsel for the respondents is rightly relying upon the notification dated 17.10.2023 [G.S.R. 750 (E)] [which is flowing out of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra)], which reads as hereunder in support of his contention that such quinquennial cadre review will take effect prospectively only from the date of notification and not retrospectively:-
"2. In the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, in Rule 4, in sub-rule (2), after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2023.
(2)They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, in rule 4, in sub-rule (2), after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided also that the redetermined strength and composition of each such cadre shall be applicable only prospectively from the date of notification in the Official Gazette."28
37. In normal circumstances, when there was no delay in completing the cadre review, the above notification would have prevailed. The normal circumstances are when the proposals for quinquennial cadre review are 'ordinarily' completed within five years, when such quinquennial cadre review were due. However, on extra ordinary situations when such quinquennial cadre review are not completed within the stipulated five years and there are cogent and rational reasons for not completing this exercise in time then the respondents can rightly rely on this [G.S.R. 750 (E)] that such quinquennial cadre review will come into force only prospectively and not retrospectively. However, when we analyzed the timeline for completion of quinquennial review process as outlined in para 34, to find out whether there are cogent and notional reasons for not completing the exercise in time, we find that there are no such cogent rational reasons to explain the inordinate delay of eighteen months on the part of Respondent no. 1. We also find that the reliance of the operative paragraph of the said Hemraj Singh Chauhan's judgment (supra) by the applicant, which reads as under:
"49. Therefore, this Court accepts the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rule 4(2) cannot be construed to have any retrospective operation and it will operate prospectively. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can, especially having regard to its power under Article 29 142 of the Constitution, give suitable directions in order to mitigate the hardship and denial of legitimate rights of the employees. The Court is satisfied that in this case for the delayed exercise of statutory function the Government has not offered any plausible explanation. The respondents cannot be made in any way responsible for the delay. In such a situation, as in the instant case, the directions given by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. In any event this Court reiterates those very directions in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India subject to the only rider that in normal cases the provision of Rule 4(2) of the said Cadre Rules cannot be construed retrospectively."
is squarely applicable in his case also, as the respondent no. 1 and for the matter even respondent no. 2 to some extent have not been able to rationally explain the delay of 18 months caused by respondent no. 1 and 6 months delay by respondent no. 2 and the entire quinquennial review exercise resulting in a cumulative delay of 30 months.
38. We are quoting the relevant paras 36 & 37 from the Hemraj Singh Chauhan's judgment (supra) herein below to show that the present case is quite similar to the said judgment of Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra) :-
"36. However, from the discussion made hereinbefore, the following things are clear:
(a) Both the appellants and the State Government in accordance with their stand in the subsequent affidavit accepted that Cadre Review in the State of U.P. was made in 1998 and the next Cadre Review in that State was due in 2003;
(b) Neither the appellants nor the State Government has given any plausible explanation justifying the delay in Cadre review;
(c) From the materials on record it is clear that the appellant as the Cadre Controlling authority repeatedly urged the State 30 Government to initiate the review by several letters referred to hereinabove;
(d) The only reason for the delay in review, in our opinion, is that there was total in-action on the part of the U.P. Government and lackadaisical attitude in discharging its statutory responsibility.
37. 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."
39. Another point to be noted in this case is that the rules permit that every year a select list will have to be prepared by the respondent no. 1 as a parallel exercise even when the respondent no. 1 and the concerned State whose cadre is being reviewed are engaged in a protracted correspondence as part of the quinquennial cadre review, was not utilized. Had such a select list been prepared on an annual basis then the rules itself permit that those whose names are found in the select list even if they have crossed the age limit of 56 years on account of delayed notification of the cadre review, their names ought to be considered for promotion to the IAS. We see that this is a safety net for officers such as the applicant to take care that their promotion prospects are not affected due to the inordinate time taken for completing the quinquennial cadre review. In this regard, we are relying upon the para 31 46 of the said Hemraj Singh Chauhan's judgment (supra), which reads as under:-
"46. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 721, while construing Regulation 5 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 held that the insertion of the word `ordinarily' does not alter the intendment underlying the provision. This Court in that case was considering the provision of Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations along with other provisions of Regulation 5. The interpretation which this Court gave to the aforesaid two Regulations was that the Selection Committee shall meet at an interval not exceeding one year and prepare a list of members who are eligible for promotion under the list. The Court held that this was mandatory in nature.
40. The respondents herein are relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Jayaraman's case, which, we find is misplaced because the issue under consideration in this OA is whether Sub- rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, would operate retrospectively, while en-cadering the ex-cadre post is the core issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court filed by the officers of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service, inducted into the Indian Administrative Service, claiming retrospective seniority. Therefore, this has no relevance to the case in hand.
32
41. However, we would like to reproduce the paras 21 & 22 from the judgment of the Madras High Court which are resonating with our thoughts in the present OA:-
"21. The Cadre Review is essentially an administrative function. The Central Government is given a mandate to decide the strength and composition of cadre, either by increasing or decreasing the strength. The petitioners proceeded as if the cadre revision is only for considering the promotional avenues to the officers. The learned Additional Solicitor General is correct in his contention that just because there are ex-cadre posts existing for a long time, it would not automatically necessitate encadering them. The State Government has also given an explanation that recommendation was given by the State Expenditure Reforms Commission to downsize the cadre strength from 325 to 254. This was also a reason for the delay in convening the Cadre Review Meeting for increasing the cadre strength.
22. The Supreme Court in Hemraj, considered the question regarding cadre review. The Supreme Court indicated that the authorities are under a statutory obligation to re-examine the strength and position of cadre ordinarily once in five years. The Supreme Court made it clear that in normal cases, the provision of Rule 4(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, cannot be construed retrospectively and it will operate prospectively. However, the Supreme Court taking into account the peculiar background facts in the said case, concurred with the observation made by the High Court that there was no explanation for the delay in convening the cadre review committee and consequent direction for retrospective operation of cadre review."
42. We do agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the cadre review is not an exercise undertaken to enhance the promotional opportunities of those officers from the State Civil Service who are awaiting induction into the IAS. Such quinquennial cadre review cannot, in every instance, result only in an increase in the cadre strength. There can also be a decrease in the cadre strength, as is evident even in the 33 IAS cadre strength of Government of Rajasthan, wherein the number of authorised IAS posts in the State decreased from 263 on 05.10.1987 to 260 on 25.05.2010. It is only from 26.05.2010 that the authorised strength increased from 260 to 296. Thus, it took 23 years for the authorised strength to increase from what it was in 1987. Therefore, certainly, the quinquennial cadre review is only an administrative mechanism for the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, to rationalise the cadre strength of the IAS. But we should not lose sight of the fact that, as a by-product of this exercise, the State Civil Service officers are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the cadre review with the expectation that the revised notified cadre strength will improve their promotional prospects. When such a cadre review exercise consumes an inordinately long time due to delays and laches, it certainly thwarts the promotional prospects of the State Civil Service officers.
43. During the course of the hearing, we wanted to ascertain from the respondent No. 1 as to whether the applicant's name would have been considered for promotion to the IAS, given the fact that the 'Senior Duty' posts in Rajasthan were enhanced only from 170 to 180 34 and not from 170 to 199 as proposed by the State Government, and that due to such increase by only 10 posts, correspondingly 30 State Civil Service officers would have been considered for such promotion; and whether the applicant herein would have found place in the select list of officers promoted to the IAS had the notification revising the cadre strength not been delayed.
44. With the assistance of the learned counsels, we examined the record and found that the officer one Sh. Harphool Singh Yadav and Sh. Ajeet Singh Rajawat, who are juniors to the applicant and belonging to the 'General' category as the applicant herein have been promoted to the IAS. This issue of 'prospective' vs. 'retrospective' was dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 19103-4 of 2006] decided on 14.11.2008, which states as follows:-
"45. In view of the above settled position in law, which does not appear to have been placed before the Tribunal, this court is unable to concur with the Tribunal on this aspect. Further, it is not possible to accept the objection of the Central Government to undertaking the cadre review exercise with reference to April 30th 2003 and for determining the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004. The court places on record and binds to the petitioners to their submission that if a result of such cadre review and the consequential consideration of their cases they get promoted to the IAS, they will not claim any back wages and that the retrospectivity of their promotion will count only for the purposes of their seniority. The interim order passed by this court should adequately take care of other consequential orders 35 that may have to be made if such direction is issued. This Court is unable to agree with the Tribunal that no retrospective exercise can be undertaken.
46. At this juncture, it would be useful to notice the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations which mandates the yearly preparation of the select list. It would not be justified for the governments at the Centre and the State to delay the exercise of cadre review and then present the affected parties with a fait accompli by saying that the exercise cannot be carried out retrospectively even if admittedly there was a failure on their part to carry out such exercise in time. As far as the present case is concerned, there should be no difficulty in undertaking the cadre review exercise as indicated hereinabove. It is made clear that the exercise that preceded the issuance of the impugned notification dated 1st February 2006, including determining the vacancies available to those whom the interveners represent, should be undertaken as if it was taking place on 30th April 2003 and with reference to the date of 1st January 2004."
Certainly, but for the fact that the applicant has crossed the age of 56 years, he would have had a bright chance of figuring in the selected list of IAS due to such cadre review.
45. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find it relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra), which we are bound to follow:-
"49. Therefore, this Court accepts the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rule 4(2) cannot be construed to have any retrospective operation and it will operate prospectively. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can, especially having regard to its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, give suitable directions in order to mitigate the hardship and denial of legitimate rights of the employees. The Court is satisfied that in this case for the delayed exercise of statutory function the Government has not offered any plausible explanation. The respondents cannot be made in any way responsible for the delay. In such a situation, as in the instant case, the directions given by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. In any event this Court reiterates those very directions in exercise of its power 36 under Article 142 of the Constitution of India subject to the only rider that in normal cases the provision of Rule 4(2) of the said Cadre Rules cannot be construed retrospectively."
46. We find that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra). Accordingly, we allow the OA with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned regulations and Notification dated 23.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-A-1) issued by the DoPT/ respondent No.1 to the extent that these have been made applicable and enforceable with effect from the date of their publication i.e., 23.07.2024 vide Regulation 1 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 (ANNEXURE-
A-2) pass by the respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside thereby directing the DoPT/respondent No. 1 to make the Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment Regulations, 2024 (ANNEXURE-A-1) applicable and enforceable with effect from December, 2023 and/or from any other date in the year 2023 as to bring the applicant in the zone of consideration for promotion to the Cadre of Indian Administrative Service (IAS). 37
(iii) The DoPT/respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the post in the Cadre of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) irrespective of his crossing the age of 56 years on 01.10.2023 inasmuch as there has been an unexplained and unjustified delay mostly at the hands of DoPT/respondent No.1 in taking a decision on IAS cadre review proposal submitted by the State of Rajasthan on 22.06.2021 (ANNEXURE-A-9).
(iv) The competent authority amongst the respondents are directed to implement the aforesaid directions within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/