Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Provided that the condition of 5 year's service shall not be applicable to a person if any person junior to him is eligible for consideration for promotion on the basis of merit.

Provided further that in the event of non- availability of persons, equal to the number of vacancies to be filled in eligible for promotion in the category of posts next lower from which promotion is made the committee may consider the persons having less than 5 years service if they are found otherwise eligible and suitable for promotion on the basis of merit alone.

3. The zone of consideration of persons eligible for promotion in the Service shall be as under:-

i) Number of vacancies No. of eligible persons to be considered

(a) For one vacancy Five eligible persons.

(b) For two vacancies Eight eligible persons.

(c) For three vacancies Ten eligible persons

(d) For four or more Three times the number of vacancies.

ii) Where the number of eligible persons for promotion to higher post is less than the number specified above, all the persons so eligible shall be considered.

36.The golden rule of interpretation of the statute, it is well settled principles of law that a plain meaning must be attributed to the statute and the statute must be construed according to the intention of the legislature and the statute has to be given its literal and natural meaning and the intention of the legislature must be found out from the language employed in the statute itself. Keeping golden rule of interpretation of statute into consideration and the fact that the approved select list prepared in terms of scheme of Reg. 1955 of last 16 years has to be taken to its logical conclusion and in meeting out the exigency which has come before us and the conjoint reading of the scheme of Reg. 1955 and the requirement of R. 8(1) of the Rules, 1954 that officer must be substantive member of State Civil Service in the context referred to herein can be safely considered to the year of substantive vacancy for which the officer's eligibility has been considered and placed in the approved select list and the present interpretation alone will serve the purpose and fulfill the object with which the scheme of Reg. 1955 has been framed by the rule making authority in exercise of powers conferred u/R. 8(1) of the Rules, 1954 and any other interpretation of R. 8(1) of the Rules, 1954 will leave a manner of doubt for the reason, as already observed, that under the present scheme of Reg. 1955, there is no provision of clubbing or carry forward of the vacancies and if these 28 vacancies remain unfilled after the officer is placed in the approved select list notified for the years 1996-97 to 2006, such unfilled vacancies either could be considered for carrying forward in the next year or may be clubbed and be considered to be the vacancies of 2012 but as already observed that there is no provision of clubbing or carry forward of the vacancies and in our considered view officers who are placed in the approved select list against the year of earlier vacancies of 1996-97 to 2006 are substantive member of service in terms of R. 8(1) of Rules, 1954 and are eligible for appointment and since retired on attaining age of superannuation entitled for all notional benefits flowing thereof which alone will meet the ends of justice and that is further supported by an affidavit filed by the Union of India furnishing details to this court where the State Civil Service Officers were given appointment in the IAS after retirement but by courts order. It will be relevant to refer to such officers who are eleven in number of different States who were given appointment at various point of time after they are retired from service, which are ad infra:--

61. Regulation 24 contemplates a detailed procedure for promotion including the zone of consideration of persons eligible for promotion in the service. Where one vacancy is available, five eligible persons are to be considered. Thus, the respondents are obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Regulations of 1974.

62. For the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled vide charge sheet dated 29 th March, 1993, under Regulation 6/7 vide order dated 26 th December, 2000, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 8th December, 2000; he was entitled for consideration for promotion to the higher posts as well. Admittedly, when the sealed cover was opened, it revealed that the Selection Committee found the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Personnel), and he was accordingly promoted to the post against the vacancy of the year 1994, after his retirement attaining the age of superannuation as would be evident from the order dated 1 st January, 2001. Hence, his case was considered for further promotion to the post of Joint Director (Personnel)/Director (Personnel), against the vacancy of year 1998, 1999 and 2000. However, the claim of the petitioner has been declined, as conveyed to him vide impugned order dated 24 th July, 2001 (Annexure-