Holding

The Court held that the amendment order and the deputation appointments are valid, non‑ultra vires, and not arbitrary, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

Mrs. P.K. Sandhu, an in‑service officer of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, filed a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointments of several Additional Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and the Secretary to the Speaker who had been placed on deputation before the recruitment rules were amended. The petition contended that the 1996 amendment order reserving 75% of posts for promotion and 25% for deputation was ultra vires, arbitrary, and that the rules could not be applied retrospectively. The Court examined the constitutional power under Article 98(3) to make and amend recruitment rules, the validity of the amendment order, and the reasonableness of the service‑length requirement for promotion. It held that the Speaker lawfully exercised the power to amend the rules, that the 75‑25 quota is a fair and non‑arbitrary scheme, and that the rules took effect from the date of amendment, thereby validating the deputed officers. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of officers on deputation without a prior amendment to the recruitment rules is valid.
Whether the 1996 amendment order reserving 75% of posts for promotion and 25% for deputation is ultra vires and violative of Article 14.
Whether the amendment order has retrospective effect and validates officers appointed before its commencement.
Whether the prescribed 17‑year service requirement for promotion is arbitrary.
Whether the Speaker has authority to appoint officers on contract basis and to amend the recruitment rules.

Subjects

Lok Sabha Secretariatrecruitment rulesdeputationpromotionArticle 98Article 14Quo WarrantoService conditionsUltra viresRule amendmentContract appointment

Judgment

A MRS. P.K. SANDHU
v.
SHIV RAJ V. PATIL ETC.

MARCH 25, 1997
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recntitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1955/Lok Sabha Secretariat (Methods of Recntitment and Eligibility Condi-
C tions for appointment) Amendmelll Order, 1996:

Rule 4(1)/Rule 1, Schedule-Lok Sabha Secretaiiaf-Appointment of
Officers from outside Lok Sabha Secretariat to posts of Joint Secretary,
Additional Secreta1y and Secretary to Speake1; Lok Sabha-In Service Officer
filing a w1it petition seeking a writ of quo waiwnto against the said of-
D ficers-This Cowt suggesting modification of the Rules-Ame11dme11t Order
1996 passed providi11g for 75% posts to be filled in by promotio11 and, i11
abse11ce of an eligible officer posts to be filed in by transfer on deputation
basis, and 25% by tra11sfer on deputation basis-Eligibility for the post of
Joi11t Secretary being three years service as Director a11d 17 years total service
in Group 'A' posts-Held, respective quota is fair and in the best interest of
E service and cannot be characterised as arbitraiy--Nor is prescription of length
of se1vice for promotions is an arbitraiy exercise of power violating Article 14
of the Constitution-Rules would be operative from 9.10.1996, the date when
they come into f orce-Officcrs on deputation would get legal 1ight to remain
in se1vice from that date-1710ugh they had been drafted earlier, with a view
F to humane ambiguities, the Rules have bee11 amended a11d are 11ow stream-
lined-In view of the power of modificatio11 of the 01iginal order being still
available to the Speaker, the deputation of officers was not without any
authority of law or in excess of authority-17ie option to Speaker to avail of
services of an expe1ienced officer as Secretaiy General 011 contract basis either
appointi11g the inse1vice officer or any other compete11t officer 011 supera11nua-
G lion cannot be assailed as i11valid or arbitrary.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 785 of
1995 etc.

H Under Article 32 of the constitution of India.
352
P.K.SANDHU V. S.R.V.PATIL 353

Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das Nikhilesh Ramachandran and- A
Srilok N. Rath for the petitioner.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, Neeraj Kishan Kaul,
Manoj Wad, Ashish Wad, Abraham N.A., Mrs. J.S. Wad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar
and Mrs. Kiran Suri for the Respondents.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Writ Petition No. 785/95 has been filed by Mrs. P.K. Sandhu, one of
the in service officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Seeking issued of a writ
of Quo Wananto against respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to show their functioning C
in their respective capacities, viz., Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as Additional
Secretaries, Respondent Ncs. 7 to 9 as Joint Secretaries and Respondent
No. 10 as Secretary to the Speaker, Lok Sabha. After perusal of the
relevant, this Court after hearing the counsel at length passed the following
order on August 2, 1996 :
D
"The petitioners, inservice officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat,
are questioning: in this writ petition the appointments of respon-
dent Nos. 5 to 9, two Addi. Secretaries and three Joint Secretaries,
on deputation. Article 98 of the Constitution provides for
Secretariat to each House of Parliament and the secretarial staff
to assist the Hon'ble Speaker and Hon'ble the Chairman of the E
Rajya Sabha respectively. Under its proviso, common posts in both
Houses of Parliament is permissible. By operation of Article 98(2)
the Parliament may by law, regulate the recruitment, and the
conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff
of either House of Parliament. Until the provision is made in this F
behalf by the parliament, clause (3) of the Article provides that
the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the
House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of State, as
the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the
conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff G
of the House of the People or the Council of States, and any rules
so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made
under the said clause.

In exercise of the said power under clause (3) of Article 98 the
President of India after consultation with the Speaker framed rules H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A called the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1955. Rule 4 provides the method of recruitment.
Sub-rule (1) clause (a) provides method by promotion of any
person employed in the Secretariat; clause (b) by permanent
transfer or deputation of a person serving outside the Secretariat
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State; (c) by
B direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 employers the Speaker
by order to specify the method or methods by which post or class
of posts may be filled, determine the proportion of vacancies to
be filled by such method and in case of recruitment by promotion,
specify the class of officers who, and the conditions subject to
c which they, shall be eligible for such promotion from time to time.
Rule 5 prescribes the qualifications for recruitment with which we
are not presently concerned.

It would appear that though from time to time the Rules came to
be amended with regard to the recruitment and appointment of
D various officers, as regards the appointment to the posts of
Secretary and Joint Secretaries initially they remained appointment
by promotion 100% and no amendment in that behalf came to be
made. It would appear that due to increase in the work in the Lok
Sabha Secretariat the Speaker convened the meeting of the op-
E position leader and Floor leaders of all the political parties. Thrice,
the leaders had met and they have decided certain procedure to
be adopted in recruitment to the posts of various categories. For
the posts of Secretaries which include Additional Secretaries and
Joint Secretaries, suggestions came to be made for appointment
by promotion, so long as the inservice candidates are available and
F
merit and ability alone should be taken into consideration in giving
promotion. Where inservice candidates are not available for
promotion, candidates serving outside the Secretariat would be
taken on deputation. Pursuant to that recommendation of the
Committee, the Secretary General has called for the prevailing
G procedure in other departments. At that stage, pending decisions,
respondent Nos. 5 to 10 came to be drafted on deputation as
Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries.

It is seen that the statutory rules having been made, one of the
H methods as provided under rule 4(1)(b) is, by deputation, it would
P.K. SANDHU v. S.R.V. PATIL 355

be ob~ious that drafting the officers serving in the U.O.I. or States A
outside the Lok Sabha Secretariat would be inconsistent with,
unless suitable amendments are made to the Rules. When we have
asked the learned counsel for respondents to place before us any
orders that might have been passed by Hon'ble the Speaker in that
behalf, he placed the entire record before us. We have perused B
the record and found that there is no statutory amendment to the
rules came to be made. We find some orders but do not cover the
aforesaid offences. We are assured by the learned counsel that
expeditious steps would be taken to have the rules amended as per
law and place before us for further consideration. It would be C
obvious that to improve efficiency of administration and also to
enthuse discipline and inculcate among inservice officers of spirit
of competence, efficiency and excellence, opportunities for promo-
tions are necessary. It would provide impetus to achieve the above
objectives. This aspect also needs to be kept in view in amending D
the rules. The counsel sought for and is granted two months time
to take the steps in that behalf and place before us the relevant
amended rules for further hearing in the matter.

Post immediately after two months."
E
In furtherance thereof, the Speaker amended the Rules and issued
the Order dated October 19, 1996. It has been duly published and came
into force with effect from October 19, 1996. The title of the Order reads
as under:
F
"The Lok Sabha Secretariat (Methods of Recruitment and
Eligibility Conditions for Appointment) Amendment Order, 1996."

By operation of clause (2), this order has come into force with
immediate effect. The method of recruitment, eligibility conditions for
appointment for the posts of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and G
Secretary General in the Lok Sabha Secretariat shall be, by operation of
Rule 1 thereof, as indicated in the Scheduled attached thereon.

The Schedule mentions that for the posts of Joint Secretary in the
scale of Rs. 5900-6700, the method of recruitment is 75% by promotion, H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A failing which by transfer on deputation; and 25% by transfer 'on deputation;
provided that the Speaker may, at his discretion, fill up a vacancy falling
to the share of the transfer on deputation by the method of promotion. The
eligibility conditions for promotion have been mentioned in column 3,
namely, "By selection from amongst officers holding post of Director in the
B Lok Sabha Secretariat in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 with at least three
years of service in the scale and a total of seventeen years of service in
Group 'A' posts. For the purpose of this provisions, service in Group 'A'
posts will also include service rendered in functionality corresponding posts
prior to their being assigned Group 'A' scales." For transfer on deputation,
it is mentioned as under :
c
"By selection from amongst :

1. Officers belonging to All India Services/Central Services holding
posts of Joint Secretary or equivalent OR officers of these services
who have been approved for appointment as Joint Secretaries by
D
the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities.

2. Officers of the State Legislature Secretariats holding posts
comparable to that to Joint Secretary in the Government of India,
that is, the scale of Rs. 5900-6700 OR officers of these Secretariats
E who have been approved for appointment to the said posts on the
said scales by their respective Cadre Controlling Authorities.

The period, of transfer on deputation shall not ordinarily ex-
ceed three years."

F Similarly, for the post of Additional Secretary, the conditions have
been mentioned as under :

"FOR PROMOTION

By selection from amongst officers holding posts of Joint Secretary
G in the Lok Sabha Secretariat in the scale of pay of Rs. 5900-6700,
with atleast three years of service in the scale and a total of twenty
years of service in Group 'A' posts. For the purpose of this
provision, service in Group 'A' posts will also include service
rendered in functionally corresponding posts prior to their being
H assigned Group 'A' scales.
P.K. SANDHU v. S.R.V. PATIL 357

FOR TRANSFER ON DEPUTATION A
By selection from amongst :

1. Officers belonging to All India Services/Central Services holding
posts of Additional Secretaries or equivalent OR officers of these
services who have been approved for appointment as Additional B
Secretaries by the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities.

2. Officers of the State Legislature Secretariats holdings posts
comparable to that to Additional Secretary in the Government of
India, that is, in the scale of Rs. 7300-7600 Or Officers of these
Secretariats who have been approved for appointment to the said C
· posts on the said scales by their respective Cadre Controlling
Authorities.

The period of transfer on deputation shall not ordinarily exceed
three years." D
For the post of Secretary, it has been mentioned as under :

"By selection by the Speaker in consultation with the Leader of the
House and the Leader of the Opposition from amongst those who
have made their mark by long years of service in the Parliament E
or State Legislatures or the Civil Service, appointment being by
any of the methods of·' recruitment viz., promotion; deputation,
contract, as may be considered appropriate on each occasion."

Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends
that this Court has indicated in the order that to improve efficiency of F
administration and also to enthuse discipline and inclucate, among in
service officers, the spirit of competence, efficiency and excellence, oppor-
tunity for promotion would be made available. This method of reserving
75% recruitment by way of promotion and giving option to call for transfer
on deputation from other sources is ultra vires. We find no force in the G
contention. It is seen that the rule indicates that in service candidates would
be eligible to be considered for promotion to the extent of 75% of the posts
in according with the eligibility conditions prescribed in column 3 thereof.
In that event, if the officers were not found eligible to be promoted, instead
of keeping the post vacant and the work suffered, options have been kept H
.\
,>------
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A given to the Speaker to take the service of other officers on deputation.
Therefore, the officers on deputation would remain on deputation without
any incursion into the 75% quota reserved for the promoted officers. As
and when the promotee officers are found to be fit for promotion, con-
sidered and promotee, the deputation officers necessarily would give place
B to the officers promoted within the 75% quota. 75% quota for inservice
officers encourages the officers and inculcates spirit of competence, char-
acter and integrity. Otherwise, the inservice officer would lose his chances
of promotions to higher echelons of service. Equally, induction of officers
of competence and ability on deputation of 25% quota will be an oppor-
C tunity to accelerate competence and efficiency apart from improving excel-
lence. Therefore, the respective quota is fair and in the best interest of the
service. It cannot be characterised as arbitrary.

Similarly, it is contended that the Rules have not been given any
retrospective effect and, therefore, the officers on deputation, i.e., respon-
D dent Nos. 5 to 10 - is bad in law. We find no force in the contention. It is
settled legal position that Rules would be operation from the date when
they came into force, namely, in this case, October 19, 1996. Therefore, the
officers on deputation would get legal to remain in service from that date.
Though they have been drafted earlier in consultation with the Leader of
E the Opposition etc., it is contended that the deputation to the Secretariat
service was not in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, it is not valid
in law. With a view to remove the ambiguities, we had directed the Hon'ble
the Speaker to take necessary steps by way of an amendment to the Rules.
In furtherance thereof, the above Rules came to be made. The Rules are
now streamlined.
F
It is seen that in 1955 Rules, which were framed by the Speaker in
consultation with the President by exercising the power under clause (3)
of Article 98 of the Constitution of India, Rule 4 contemplates the method
or methods by which a posts or class of posts may be filed. Since the 1962
G Orders are only outcome of exercise of the said power, which was further
modified by amendment in the Order dated December 1, 1974, the power
of modification of the original order was still available to the Speaker and,
therefore, the deputation of respondents Nos. 5 to 10 was not without any
authority of law or in excess of authority. Therefore, they are not valid ab
H initio for issue a Writ of Quo Warranto. It is not necessary for us to decide
P.K.SANDHU v. S.R.V.PATIL 359

the controversy whether the Speak had power, when service of Respon- A
dents 5 to 10 were requisitioned and availed of on transfer basis from the
All India Administrative Service for the reason that under the amended
Rules, one of the sources of recruitment to the service is transfer.
Therefore, the continuance of Respondent 5 to 10 on deputation is in
accordance with law and their retention in Lok Sabha Secretariat is
B
valid as they have legal authority to remain in its Services. The further
contention that availment of the services of the Secretary General on
contract basis is invalid, is without substance. It is settled legal position
that an in-service officer, if taken on contract basis during the period
of service, rendered service on contract basis and on expiry thereof he
gets to his substantive post in the parent Department from where he C
came to be in the services of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. In the interreg-
num, he cannot be compelled to lose his lien on the substantive post in
the parent department. Even if the services of an incumbent on super-
annuation is required in the public interest, the same can be availed on
contract basis. Equally, if any other competent officer who on attaining D
superannuation from any other service was required to be taken in due
to exigency of the service, it may be open to the Speak to avail of
services of such an experienced officer on contract basis for a specified
period. Thus in either event the option available to the Speaker to avail
of the services or an experienced officers as Secretary General, cannot E
be assailed as invalid or arbitrary.

It is then contended by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta that the petitioner
was recruited thought direct recruitment from the State Service of
Punjab and she has been continuing in service. The respondents have F
disputed the correctness thereof. We need not go into that aspect of the
controversy. His only contention is that 17 years of service prescribed
in the Rules for promotion is unwarranted and arbitrary. We do not find
any merit sin.ce the rule making authority is equally competent to
prescribe the conditions of service for promotion. 17 years' service is
one of the conditions prescribed by the Speaker for promotion to the G
next higher post. Under these circumstances, the Rule cannot be char-
acterised as ultra vires of power. It would be obvious that when promo-
tion is sought to be made with a view to ensure competence and
efficiency in service, obviously, the Speaker had in view the length of
service as one of the conditions for promotion. Under there circumstan- H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A ces, prescription of length of service for promotion is not an arbitrary
exercise of power violating Article 14. Whether the petitioner. Smt. P.K.
Sandhu, would be considered for promotion or not and whether she
fulfills the qualifications conditions of service are all matters for the
Speaker to consider and until that exercise is done, we need not go into
that controversy.
B
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P. Petitions dismissed.