Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. Shri Khatana also made an alternative argument to the extent that even if 40% quota as claimed by the applicants is admitted for the sake of argument, yet the Government action cannot be vitiated in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule 25 of the CSS Rules, 1962 provides for relaxation of the Rules, which requires consultation with the UPSC. Such consultation would be necessary where 20% of Direct Recruitment quota is absolutely diverted to the Select List quota. However, it would not be so with regard to relaxation of allocation of vacancies between seniority and CLDCE categories in Fourth Schedule. Furthermore, the Honble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.9.1957 in State of UP vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastav, AIR 1957 SC 912, has observed in the context of the provisions of Article 320 (3), that consultation with UPSC is not mandatory and that non-compliance with those provisions does not afford a cause of action in a Court of Law. Shri Khatana made a further reference to the case of G.S. Lamba and others vs. Union of India and others, (1985) 2 SCC 604, wherein the case involved pertained to a sister cadre concerned, namely, IFS (B) for which even a quota for CLDCE was provided in the rules itself yet the Honble Supreme Court held that there was a power to relax and the Government had made appointment in violation of the quota without issuing any formal order of relaxing the rules and without recording any reasons or consulting the Commission the action of the Government cannot be invalidated and it would be deemed to be in relaxation of the rules. Paragraphs 7, 23 to 29 of the said judgment are referred to in this regard. Shri Khatana made a further reference to the case of A. Janardhana vs. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 601, wherein the Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, made the following observations in para 22 of its judgment:-