Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. Daphtary appearing on behalf of petitioner Ram Chandra Sinha (C. W. J. C. No. 854/68) has contended that the decision of the Government of India allotting certain years, being the year 1948 in the case of his client petitioner Ram Chandra Sinha, must be taken to be final as this decision was arrived at after a full consideration of the letter of the State Government, being the letter of Shri M.S. Rao, dated the 9th July, 1958 (annexure C, page 13, of the brief in C. W. J. C. No. 853/68-Volume III), which approval was communicated to the State Government in the letter of Shri Narayanaswamy, Deputy Secretary, Government of India. The reason assigned by the Government of India for revising this decision, stating that the Government of India's previous decision was incorrect, must be held to be invalid and the order quashed inasmuch as there was no error or misrepresentation in the letter of Shri M.S. Rao. The Government of India took a decision after a mature consideration of the reasons assigned in Shri M.S. Rao's letter and reversed that decision without hearing the petitioners, which amounted to a violation of the principle of natural justice. He has referred in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882. On behalf of the Union of India as also the direct recruits, it has been urged that the orders passed in regard to the seniority of these officers are all administrative orders in which no reasons are to be assigned, no officer has got any vested right to be heard in person and the principle of natural justice cannot be invoked in a case like this. It is true, no doubt, that the previous order was passed in September, 19.58 and the promoted officers continued to hold rank higher than the direct recruits from that date onwards up to 1967 when the previous decision was revoked and the seniority of these officers was ordered to be revised. In my opinion, the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted as correct. In a matter of administration, it is open to the departmental authority to pass any suitable order, if materials be on record for assessing the merit of claim or claims of the officer or officers concerned. If, however, any officer feels aggrieved by such an order, it is open to him to put in a representation for reconsideration of the decision and it can well be taken as established that if the authority taking the decision is satisfied that there is substance in the grievance made by the officer adversely affected by that order, the decision must be altered and justice done between the parties. It is true that normally this should be done within a reasonable time to avoid further complications by virtue of any officer having enjoyed the benefit of that decision for such a long time and, unless there be very compelling reason to do so, such a decision should not be altered if a long time has passed since the decision taken one way and alteration sought to be made on a subsequent date. As an abstract question of administrative policy, however, it is difficult to uphold the contention that if a decision has been arrived at by the Government on the administrative side, it cannot be altered if the Government is satisfied that the decision was wrong. In this particular case, it has been urged on behalf of the direct recruits that there is no delay caused on account of any inaction or acquiescence on their part. In fact, after the rejection of the representations by Shri P.S. Appu, Shri K.A. Ramasubramanian and Shri S.D. Prasad, the opposite party questioned the correctness of the decision of the Government of India allotting the particular years to the promotees as early as 1960. It was the Government of Bihar that did not forward their representations to the Central Government up to the year 1965 and then two years were taken for the decision to be arrived at. It cannot be urged that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party although it is unfortunate that the matter has taken such a protracted course and the promoted officers have enjoyed high posts by virtue of their seniority for at least nine years after the year of allotment ordered in their favour in 1958. As I have already indicated, there is no question either of violation of the principle of natural justice in this case because tbere is no provision for a personal hearing and, as for detailed objection by the petitioners, the matter was gone into and, although the Government of India adhered to its decision of 1967, it must be assumed that it felt satisfied that the decision taken in favour of the direct recruits was a correct decision. The decision of the Supreme Court not being a decision in an administrative matter cannot be deemed to have any relevance in the case of an administrative order passed by the Government.

6. The second point raised by Mr. Daphtary, objecting to the stand of the letter of the Government of India, that consultation with the Public Service Commission was not held is that this stand cannot be taken to be legal or even factually correct. This is not stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in all the petitions although this statement finds place in the counter-affidavit filed in the case of petitioner Ramchandra Sinha. He has urged, however, that the select list of officers for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service cadre was actually prepared in 1954, and not in 1955. In that year the seniority rules were promulgated in September, they were well known to the authorities, and approval was given to the ad boc list by the Union of India in consultation with tbe Chairman of the Public Service Commission and this list was ready in December, 1954. It is true, no doubt, that the ad hoc list was not a select list which contained the list of officers found fit for promotion, but the ad boc list referred to the fitness of certain officers for officiation in a senior post.

Mr. Daphtary has urged that this ad hoc list consisting of officers who were considered fit for officiation in a senior post must be taken to be sufficient compliance with the proviso to Rule 3 (3) (b), because when the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was satisfied about the fitness of all the petitioners for officiation in a senior post and the Union Public Service Commission approved it, this should be sufficient compliance with the requirement of the said proviso. Learned Counsel for the Union of India and the direct recruits have contended against the correctness of this argument. It is accordingly necessary to quote here the back-ground in which the ad hoc list was prepared and which is referred to in the letter of Shri M.S. Rao (annexure C, page 23, of the brief in C. W. J. C. No. 853 of 1968, Volume III):

34. The first contention raised by Sri C.K. Daphtary is that after his client, Sri Ram Chandra Sinha had been allotted the year 1948, by the Central Government, acting under the appropriate rules, this allotment should not have been changed by the Central Government without giving an opportunity to his client to show that the first allotment should not have been varied. It is contended that there had been a violation of natural justice in the procedure adopted by the Central Government. Sri Daphtary has argued that if the Central Government had proposed to reopen the question of allotment under the Regulation of Seniority Rules, his client may have shown that he was entitled to a year of allotment even earlier than 1948. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 44 of Sri Ram Chandra Sinha's writ application, where it has been mentioned that the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed under the first proviso to Rule 3 (3) (b) and not under the second proviso, and, therefore, consultation with the Union Public Service Commission was not necessary in this case. Whatever may be the merit of the last contention raised by Sri Daphtary, his argument that the Central Government should not have made any change in the year of allotment, in 1967, in the circumstances that it was made, is not without force. By re-allotment of the year, Sri Ram Chandra Sinha's seniority has been reduced by twelve places in the gradation list between 1958 and 1967. [As a matter of fact, the seniority of all the petitioners has been affected by the order passed by the Central Government in 1967]. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India it has been stated in paragraph 23 that in their letter dated the 9th July, 1958, the State Government had not placed all facts in their proper perspective. It is stated further, that acting on the basis of incorrect information, the Government of India had agreed to assign a certain year of allotment in 1958. In this connection, Sri C.B. Agarwala, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has referred to Sri Rao's letter and has argued that the State Government had never mentioned in this letter that certain posts had been declared earlier as equivalent posts within the meaning of Rule 2 (g), quoted above. It is difficult to accede to the contention raised by Sri Agarwala in this context. Clearly, all aspects of the matter were placed by the State Government before the Central Government, requesting the latter to notify the gradation list according to the recommendation. Paragraph 10 of Sri Rao's letter had stated thus:--