Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 22.12.2017, the Chief Secretary of Government of Karnataka issued a letter to Secretary, UPSC as No. DPAR 02 SAS 2017 which says "With reference to the above, I am directed to invite your attention to the letter dated 10.02.2017 referred to above, wherein, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, have determined 03 (three) vacancies for preparing the Select List of 2016 under Non-SCS category for appointment to IAS of Karnataka cadre. In view of some litigation we could not process the file earlier. Now the State Government is in the process of finalizing the proposal and the proposal will be sent to UPSC shortly for further necessary action by December end." The UPSC on the other hand would say in their reply that they act under the assignment granted to them under Article 320 of the Constitution and by provisions of the All India Services Act, 1951 and vide Rule 8 sub clause 2 of IAS Recruitment Rules, 1954 and the IAS (Appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 induction of Non-SCS into IAS is to be resorted "make recruitment to the service any person of outstanding ability and merit serving in connection with the affairs of the State who is not a member of State Civil Service of that State." They would thus say that if any special circumstance is brought to the notice of the Government of India by the State Government and in such circumstance Non-SCS officers are to be promoted into the IAS. This without any doubt is in consonance with the theory of greatest good to the public must be the aim and focus of a fair governance system. In order that the most outstanding in merit and ability do not get sidelined special provisions had been enacted by the regulations and it may be noted that as early as 15.01.2017 itself the Government of India has been alerted to this issue and had perused the matter but then the completion could not be attained during the interregnum because of the pendency of some litigation. The UPSC also would say in their reply that the Committee have to meet every year to consider the proposal of the State Government made under Regulation 4 and the suitability of the person for appointment to the service shall be determined by scrutiny of service records and personal interview. They would say that 50% weightage of 50 marks will be given to service records with particular reference to ACRs for the 5 preceding years and 50% weightage of 50 marks will be given for personal interview. In addition, a minimum of 50% marks in each of the components, i.e., the ACR assessment and the personal interview must be separately obtained by the Non-SCS officer for qualifying for selection for appointment to the IAS under the selection regulation. Therefore, needless to say, the State Government having prepared an appropriate list for consideration and had going by the records produced before us scrupulously examined all the matters involved in order to submit 3x5=15 names for consideration by the SCM. It appears to us that these persons have crossed over a qualificatory bar and in accordance with the regulations and the administrative experience of the Government became eligible for consideration and thereby attained a legitimate expectation for being considered. The UPSC would say that vide letter dated 26.12.2017 the State Government had sent a proposal for preparation of Select List of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka cadre in view of the order dated 15.12.2017 of the Hon'ble CAT in O.A. No. 170/00750/2017 filed by ShriVenugopala Reddy wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed to complete the process for appointment to IAS against 3 vacancies determined for the Select List of 2016 in respect of Non-SCS officers of Karnataka. The UPSC would say that some deficiencies were observed in the ACR Dossiers of some of the eligible officers and therefore the State Government vide letter dated 27.12.2017 were accepted to rectify the deficiency thus the proposal of convening the said SCM can be considered as per provisions of the selection regulations. They would say that on 29.12.2017 the State Government had issued a rectification proposal after having rectified all the deficiencies and had requested to hold a SCM. Therefore the UPSC would say that as 29.12.2017 was the last working day of the year it is not practicable to hold the SCM. The State Government in their reply would contend that in OA No. 170/01007/2016 filed by Dr.SangeethaGajananBhat the Tribunal had issued an interim order on 19.10.2017 wherein it is said "It is made clear that till the matters finally settled no action will be taken in this regard by any authorities." The issue in that case was that the Union Government had earlier circulated a proposal to indicate that the Non-SCS officers or SCS officers also must be selected on the basis of a selection process which is mandatorily required wherein academic prominence was to be the yardstick rather than experience in the field. Since the Union of India had circulated such a note it was felt that the matter should engage our attention and therefore we had requested the State Government, the Union Government and the UPSC to provide their views. After detailed hearing it came out that, even though the proposal may be on the face of it good, none of the State Governments have agreed to this proposal and in fact many have actively opposed it giving reasons. We also tried to find out whether this was an implementable proposal and held discussions with many senior officials who are apprised of this matter and finally we had to hold that it may not be entirely practical to bring it into fruition even though we felt that the concerned applicant had brought out one credible issue. So, cases of these genre were clubbed together and disposed off on 15.12.2017. But the interim order was vacated on 30.10.2017 itself and from that date there is no obstacle

12. Therefore, in this context what is legitimate expectation. In R.K.Mittal v. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 232 the Hon'ble Apex court held "Legitimate expectation is reasonable expectation". In Union of India and Ors.Vs.Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499 the Hon'ble Apex court held "For the application of this doctrine, there must be representation and reliance on the representation and resultant detriment. The expectation must be legitimate or reasonable. Legitimate of expectation can be inferred only if it is found on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in a natural and regular sequence. Such representation may arise from the words or conduct. For a legitimate expectation to arise, the decision of the administrative authority must affect the person by drpriving him of some benefit or advantage which either he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which can legitimately expect to be permitted to confine to do until these has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it"

32. The applicants claim that a legitimate expectation visits them as from their end, because of their qualifications and merit they were selected to be in a list for a further selection and thereafter after having gone through a tedious selection process lasting for almost an year they acquired a legitimate expectation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in NarendraVs. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 2138 held "Under the doctrine of legitimate expectation, even a non-statutory policy or guideline issued by the State would be enforceable against the State." Therefore provisions of Rule 4, 7 and 8 comes to the fore in aid of the applicant.

In Syed Khalid Rizvi&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575, this Court was constructing the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1995 which is in pari material with clause (1) of Regulation 5 and contained the word "ordinarily", It was observed :-

"......since the preparation of the select list is the foundation for promotion and its omission impinges upon the legitimate expectation of promotee officers for consideration of their claim for promotion as IPS officers, the preparation of the select-list must be constructed to be mandatory. The Committee should, therefore, meet every year and prepare the select-list and be reviewed and revised from time to time as exigencies demand." [p. 586] "Unless the select-list is made annually and reviewed and revised from time to time, the promotee officers would stand to lose their chances of consideration for promotion which would be a legitimate expectation. This Court in Mohan LalCapoor case held that the Committee shall prepare every year the select-list and the list must be submitted to the UPSC by the State Government for approval and thereafter appointment shall be made in accordance with the rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that preparation of the select-list every year is mandatory. It would subserve the object of the Act and the rules and afford an higher opportunity to the promotee officers to reach higher echelons of the service."