Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) The select list prepared for the year 1978, 1979 was vitiated on account of the unauthorised participation of Shri I.C. Puri as a member of the Selection Committee.

(6) Regulations 3 and 5 of the Promotion Regulation are violative of rule 8(1) of the recruitment rules inasmuch as the Promotion Regulations impinge upon the State Govern-

ment's power to make recommendations for appointment to the service.

Senior posts in the Indian Administrative Service not below the rank of Commissioner are determined in accordance with the schedule to the Indian Administrative Service. (Fixation of Cadres Strength) Regulations 1954. The cadre regulation did not provide for any post of Development Commissioner for the State of Punjab as a result of which there was no separate post of Development Commissioner. Instead, the Financial Commissioner was made Incharge of the Development Department and he was designated as Financial Commissioner (Develop- ment). Shri I.C. Puri who was posted as the Financial Com- missioner (Development) was the Incharge of Development Department at the relevant time and as such he was appointed a member of the Selection Committee and admittedly he par- ticipated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee which held its deliberation on November 30, 1979 for prepar- ing the select list of 1979. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab it has been asserted that the Development Department was under the charge of the Financial Commissioner who was designated as Financial Commissioner (Development) and Shri Pun who was holding the rank of the Commissioner was the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department.

On behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners it was strenu- ously urged that Shri Puri was not the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department on 30.11.79. Instead Hardayal Singh was Incharge of the Development Department as Special Secretary in the Department of Rural Development, Panchay- ats, Agriculture and Forests. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Govt. it is asserted that Hardayal Singh was merely posted Special Secretary to the Govt. He was neither holding the rank of Commissioner nor he was the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department. However, Hardayal Singh was given the rank of Secretary simply to protect his special pay in the time scale of selection grade in the Indian Administrative Service. He was not Incharge of the Department as Secretary, instead he was working under over all control of Financial Commissioner (Development) namely, Shri I.C. Puff. This finds support from the note recorded by Hardayal Singh on 5.12.79 requesting the Chief Secretary for allocation of work between the Financial Commissioner (Development) and Special Secretary. The rele- vant note is available on record. It is thus evident that Hardayal Singh was working under the over all control of Shri I.C. Puri who was the Financial Commissioner (Develop- ment) and Secretary Incharge of Development Department. The material placed on record leaves no room for any doubt that Shri I.C. Puri designated as Financial Commissioner (Devel- opment) was also discharging the duties and functions of the Development Commissioner. He was, therefore, holding the dual charge as no separate post of Development Commissioner had been sanctioned by the Govt. These facts clearly show that for all purposes Shri Pun was working as Development Commis- sioner. As Financial Commissioner (Development) he was exercising same powers and discharging same functions which could be performed by a Development Commissioner, therefore he was competent to participate in the deliberations of the selection committee. While considering this question we cannot be oblivious of the fact that at no stage any objec- tion was raised against functioning of Shri Puri as a member of the Selection Committee or his participation in the deliberations. There is further no allegations of mala fide or bias against Shri Puff. There is evidence on record to show that recommendations of the Selection Committee consti- tuted under Regulation 3 were unanimous, which were scruti- nised by the State Govt. and the Union Public Service Com- missions before the same were approved.

Learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in A.K. Kraipak's case. In that case initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service was challenged. In pursuance of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 a special Selection Board was constituted for Selecting officers for appointment to the Indian Forest Service, from officers of the forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Acting Chief Conservator of For- ests of the State was a member of the Selection Committee which made recommendations for the recruitment, he partici- pated in the selection board's deliberations in preparing the list of selected candidates in order of preference, although he himself was a candidate for selection." The Court held that the participation of the Acting Chief Con- servator vitiated the recommendations made by the Selection Board as there was conflict between the, Acting Chief Con- servator's personal interest and his duty and further he was a Judge in his own cause. The Court further held that taking into consideration probability and ordinary course of human conduct, there was reasonable ground for believing that the Acting Chief Conservator was likely to have been biased. In these circumstances the Court held that the selection made by the Board could 'not be considered to have been made fairly and justly as it was influenced by a member who was biased. Principles laid down in Kraipak's case do not effect the validity of the recommendations made for the preparation of select list of 1979 as Shri I.C. Puff was neither biased against any of the appellants/petitioners, nor there was conflict between his personal interest and duty. Shri Puri had no interest in the inclusion or exclusion of a member of the State Civil Service nor he had any personal interest in preparing the list. There is no allegation of bias or malice against Shri Puff, his participation in the meeting of the Selection Committee did not render the select list of 1979 illegal. Shri B.S. Khoji, learned counsel for Pritam Singh and other petitioners in the writ petitions urged that Promotion Regulations 3, 5 and 7 are ultra vires rule 8 and the entire selection made in pursuance of the impugned Regulations are illegal. Rule 8(1) provides that the Central Govt. may on the recommendations of the State Government and in consulta- tion with the Commission and in accordance with such Regula- tions as the Central Govt. may frame after consultation with the State Governments and the Commission, recruit to the Indian Administrative Service persons by promotion from amongst the substantive members of State Civil Service. According to the learned counsel, Rule 8(1) confers power on the Central Govt. to make recruitment to the Indian Adminis- trative Service by promotion from amongst the members of the State Civil Service on the recommendations of the State Govt., in consultation with the Commission. However, Regula- tions 3, 5 and 7 rob the State Govt. of its power of making recommendation for recruitment to the service. The plea of ultra vires can be sustained if Regulations 3, 5 and 7 are inconsistent with Rule 8(1). In our opinion Rule 8(1) con- fers power on the Central Govt. to make recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from amongst the members of the State Civil Service on the recommendations of the State Govt. in consultation with the Commission. It further contemplates that the recommendations of the State Govt. and consultation with the Commission which is consti- tutional obligation as envisaged by Art. 320 of the Consti- tution, would be in accordance with regulations which the Central Govt. may frame after consultation with the State Govt. and Commission. Rule 8(1), therefore, contemplates the State Govt's. recommendation and the consultation of the Commission in accordance with the regulations framed by the Central Govt. The Central Govt. has framed promotion regula- tions which provide method and manner of selection. Regula- tion 3 provides for constitution of selection committee to prepare list of suitable officers in accordance with Regula- tion 5. The list so prepared is forwarded by the State Govt. to the Union Public Service Commission along with records and the observations of the State Govt. in accordance with Regulation 6. Thereafter the Commission considers the list under Regulation 7. The Commission may make any change in the list received from the State Govt. and thereafter it may approve finally with such modification as in its opinion it may be just and proper. The list as finally approved by the Commission forms the select list of members of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains in force until its review and revision. Regulation 9 lays down that the appointment of members of State Civil Service shall be made by the Central Govt. on the recommendations of the State Govt. in the order in which their names appear in the select list. In our opinion these regulations do not in any manner impinge upon the powers of the State Govt. to make recommendations to the Central Govt. as contemplated by Rule