Holding

The 12‑month period under Regulation 5(1) commences from the date the select list is first prepared (March 16 1989), leading to an estimated vacancy of eleven and a required select list of twenty‑two officers; for Regulation 5(3) the relevant January 1 is that of the year the committee first met (1988).

Summary

The Union of India appealed against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had held that the State had miscalculated the 12‑month period for estimating IAS vacancies under Regulation 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The Tribunal ruled that the period should start from the date the select list was actually prepared – March 16 1989 – rather than from December 1 1988 as the State had practiced. Consequently, the estimated vacancies were eleven, requiring a select list of twenty‑two officers and extending the zone of consideration to the 84th officer in seniority. The Court also clarified that Regulation 5(3) refers to the January 1 of the year in which the committee first met (1988), determining the age‑ineligibility cut‑off. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s interpretation and directing the Review Selection Committee to prepare the list within two months.

Issues considered

The correct commencement date for the 12‑month period under Regulation 5(1) – whether from December 1 1988 or from the actual date of preparation of the select list.
Whether the select list prepared on December 19 1988 was valid despite incomplete consideration of the required number of officers.
The interpretation of Regulation 5(3) concerning the age limit – which year’s January 1 determines ineligibility.
Whether a subsequent meeting of the Selection Committee causes the earlier select list to lapse.
The necessity and scope of a Review Selection Committee under the Tribunal’s direction.

Legislation cited

Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955s. Regulation 5(1), s. Regulation 5(2), s. Regulation 5(3)

Subjects

service lawpromotionIASselection committeevacancy calculationregulation interpretationseniorityage limitreview committee

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA
A v.
DR. M.G. DIGHE AND ORS.

AUGUST 27, 1991

B [M.H. KANIA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

Service Law: Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
. promotion) Regulations, 1955-Regulations 5( 1), (2) and (3)-lnter-
pretation of-Promotion of members of State Civil Service-,--Prepara-
tion of Select List of suitable officers-Selection Committee meeting on
two dates-12-month period under Regulation 5 (]) to be counted from
C the second date when the Committee finalised the list as per Regulation
5( 1) read with Regulation 5(2)-For purposes of Regulation 5(3), the
date when the Committee first met to be reckoned.

The first respondent and five other members of Madhya Pradesh
D State Civil Service challenged before the Central Administrative Tri-
bunal the selection of 14 officers of the State Civil Service for promotion
to the Indian Administrative Service as illegal on the ground that the
State had wrongly calculated the anticipated number of vacancies as 7
by counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 5(1) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955,
E from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1989, instead or from March
16, 1989 to March 15, 1990, and if the latter petiod was considered as
the proper period for the purposes of the said Regulation, the vacancies
would be 11_ and the select list of 22 offlce..S would have to be prepared,
for which 66 officers would have to be considered, and the zone of
consideration would extend to the 84th officer in the seniority list, since
F 18 of the 66 officers were ineligible under Regulation 5(3).

On behalf of the State Government it was contended that since the
meeting was first held on December 19, 1988 the period of 12 months
under the Regulation S(l)" would have to be calculated from December
1, 1988 to November 30, 1989 according to the previous practice of the
G Government, which was that since the Committee met in the second
fortnight of December, the period was to be calculated from the lst
December, 1988.

The Tribunal held _that neither the practice aflopted by the State
Government, nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation 5(1) was
H proper, and that the span of 12 months would begin from March 16,

776
. U.0.1 v. M.G. DIGHE 777

1989 and end on March IS, 1990 and directed that a Select List of 22· A
officers should be prepared since during the later period, the estimated
vacancies were 11, and that a Review Committee should be constituted
to consider the cases of the applicants.

Dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India, this Court,
B
HELD: 1.1 The wording of the Regulation 5(1) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955,
is very clear. It says "commencing from the date of preparation of the
list". [779F)

1.2 In the present case, admittedly the list which was prepared by C
the Selection Committee on December 19, 1988 was not according to
Regµlation 5(1) read with Regulation 5(2). Since the Selection Commit-
tee had, on the basis of its estimate of seven vacancies on December 19, •
1988 considered the cases of only 30 officers when it was required to
consider the cases of 42 officers, the Union Public Service Commission
had returned its recommendation and asked the Selection Committee to D
consider the cases of 12 m9re officers. Hence, the preparation of the
Select List was not complete in December, 1988 and the Committee was
required to convene a fresh· meeting on March 16, 1989, on which date
alone it can be said to have prepared the select list as required by
Regulation 5(1). Since the select list, as required by Regulation 5(1),
was for the first time prepared on March 16, 1989, the period of 12 .months E
under Regulation 5(1) had to be counted from that date. [779G-H, 780A-B)

1.3 Doring the period of 12 months from 16th March, 1989 to
15th March, 1990, the estimated vacancies were 11 and, therefore, a
select list of 22 officers has to be prepared by considering the cases in all
of 66 officers and extending the zone to the 84th officer in the seniority F
list according to the order of seniority (18 officers out of 66 being
ineligible). [780C-D) •

2. The provision of ·Regulation 5(3) speaks of the first day of
January of the year "in which", the Selection Committee ''meets",
unlike the language of Regulation 5(1) which speaks of "the date of the G
preparation of the list". In the present ca!>e, the Committee first met on
December 19, 1988. Therefore, for the purpose of Regulation 5(3), it is
that date which is relevant and if that is so; it is only those members of
the State Civil Service who had attained the age of 54 years on January
I, 1988 who would be ineligible. [781C-D]
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

3. In the circumstances, for the purposes of the Review Selection
A
Committee to be convened, the zone of consideration will be as if the
meeting was held on March 16, 1989. The ac.tual number of vacancies
which will have to be considered is 11. I78 IE]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3383
B of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1990 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 129 of 1989.

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Hemani Sharma
and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellant. ~-·
c
B.S. Banthia, Piyush Mathur, G. Prakash, T.C. Sharma, S.K.
Agnihotri and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
SAWANT, J. What falls for consideration in this appeal is the
interpretation of clauses (1), (2) and {3) of Regulation 5 of the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). The first respondent
and five others who were members of the Madhya Pradesh State Civir
E Service had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tri-
bunal' for brevity) with a grievance that the selection of officers to the
Indian Administrative Service ('!AS') on the basis of recommendation
made by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on December 19,
1988 and on March 16, 1989 was illegal.

F 2. In its meeting on December 19, 1988, the Selection Commit-
tee had estimated 7 vacancies in the !AS cadre and was, therefore,
required to prepare a select list of 14 members of the State Civil
Service for promotion to the !AS, under Regulation 5(1) of the Regu-
lations. While preparing the list, the committee had to consider for
inclusion in the said list the cases of members of the State Civil Service
G (in the order of there seniority) equal to three times the number of
officers to be placed on the list. Hence the Committee had to consider
the cases of 42 members of the Service. The Committee, however,
considered the cases only of 30 officers, graded them and submitted its
recommendation to the Union Public Service Commission. The Com-
mission directed the Committee to meet again and grade the remain-
H ing 12 officers also. Accordingly, the Committee met again on March
U.0.1 v. M.G. DIGHE lSAWANT, J.] 779

16, 1989 to complete the select list as directed. As a result of this
selection, appointment orders of 14 officers who were included in the
A
select list were issued on 29th/30th March 1989. This was challenged
by the applicants before the Tribunal by pointing out that the State
had wrongly calculated the number of vacancies as 7 by counting the
period of 12 months under Regulation 5(1), from December 1, 1988 to
November 30, 1989 instead of from 16th March 1989 to 15th March. B
1990. lf the latter period was considered as the proper period for the
purposes of the said Regulation, the vacancies would be 11 and the
select list of 22 officers would have to be prepared. That will extend
the zone of consideration in all to 66 officers. Since 18 of the 66 office"
·~· were ineligible, the zone of consideration will extend to the 84th
officer in the seniority list. On behalf of the State Government, it was
contended that since the meeting was first held on 19th December.
c
1988 the period of 12 months under the said Reg•1lation will have to be
calculated from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1989 according to
the previous practice of the State Government, which was that since
the Committ,ee meets in the second fortnight of December, the period
was to be calculated from the 1st December of that year. We agree D
with the Tribunal that neither the practice adopted by the State Gov-
ernment nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation 5( 1) IS
proper. The relevant portion of Regulation 5(1) reads as follows:

"5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers.-(!) .....
. . . . The number of members of the State Civil Service E
included in the list shall not be more than twice \he number
of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the
period of twelve months, commencing from the date of pre-
paration of the list. in tht; posts available for then1

(Emphasis supplied) F

We are not concerned with the rest of the provision of the said
regulation for the purposes of this point. The wording of the regulation
is very clear. It says "commencing from the date of the preparation of
the list". In the present case, admittedly the list which was prepared by
the Selection Committee on 19.12.1988 was not according to Regula- G
tion 5(1) read with Regulation 5(2). Regulation 5(2) requires that the
cases of members of the State Civil Service which are required to be
considered for preparation of the select list have to be in number
equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the select
list. As pointed out earlier. the Selection Committee had on the basis
of its estimate of vacancies on 19th December, 1988 considered the H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!991] 3 S.C.R.

eases of only 30 officers when it was required to consider the cases of
A
-!2 officers. It is for this reason that the Union Public Service Comm is-
"on had returned its recommendation and asked the Selection Com-
mittee to consider the cases of 12 more officers. Hence the preparation
of the select list was not complete in December 1988 and the Commit-
tee was required to convene a fresh meeting on March 16, 1989 on
B which date alone it can be said to have prepared the select list as
required .under Regualtion 5(1). Since the select list, as required by
Regulation 5( !), was for the first time prepared on March 16, 1989, the
period of 12 months under Regulation 5( 1) had to be counted from
that date. The Tribunal had, therefore, rightly held that the span of 12
months would begin from March 16, 1989 and end on March 15, 1990.
c There is further no dispute that curing the period of 12 months
from 16th March, 1989 to 15th March, 1990, the estimated vacancies
were 11 and, therefore, the Tribunal's direction to prepare a select list
of 22 officers by considering the cases in all of 66 officers and, there-
fore, extending the zone to the 84th officer in the seniority list accord-
D ing to the order of seniority ( 18 officers out of 66 being ineligible), is
both proper and valid.

3. A 'contention was then advanced before us on behalf of the
appellant that the select list lapses when a meeting of the Selection
Committee to prepare a fresh select list is held. Hence no appointment
E could be made from the earlier select list on and after the date of the
meeting of the next Selection Committee. There is nothing on record
as to whether any Selection Committee met after March 16, 1989. In
fact, the Tribunal's direction to constitute a Review Committee. to
consider the cases of the applicants before it and any other officers
who were in the consideration zone, has not yet been implemented and
F the Selection Committee has yet to meet to prepare the ·list of
members of the State Civil Service eligible to be placed in the select list
as on March 16, 1989. There is, therefore, no question of the lapse of
the list which is yet to be prepared. A meeting of the Selection Com-
mittee to prepare the list for future years cannot be held unless the
meeting as directed by the Tribunal is first held and the select list·
G finalised.

4. The last contention was that under Regulation 5(3), there is a
ba,- on the Selection Committee taking into consideration the cases of
the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 54
years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets. The
H argument was that some of the officers had attained the age of 54 years
U.0.1 v. M.G. DIGHE (SAWANT, J.] 781

on 1st January, 1989 and, therefore, would be ineligible for considera- A
tion to be placed in the select list. According io us, this contention is
-;- . inconsistent with the provisions of Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations.
Regulation 5(3) reads as follows:

"5(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the
members of the State Civil Service who have attained the B
age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in
which it meets:"
(Emphasis ours)
>
·-; The provision of Regulation 5(3) is clear. It speaks of the first
day of January of the year "in which", the Selection Committee c
"meets". It is unlike the language of Regulation 5( 1) which, as pointed
out earlier, speaks of "the date of the preparation of the list". In the
present case, admittedly the Committee first met on 19th December,
1988. Therefore, for the purpose of Regulation 5(3), it i~ that date
which is relevant and if that is so, it is only those members of the State
Civil Service who will be ineligible who had attained the age of 54 D
years on 1st January, 1988. The Tribunal has also clarified this while
giving the direction for a Review Seiection Committee.
t-
We make it clear that for the purposes of the Review Selection
Committee to be convened as directed by the Tribunal the zone of
consideration will be as if the meeting was held on March 16, 1989. E
The actual number of vacancies which will have to be considered has
already been indicated in our judgment.
~

l.._ 5. In the circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and is dismis-
sed. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending for
some time, we direct that the Review Departmental Promotion Com- F
mittee/Selection Committee should meet and prepare the select list
within two months from the day of the receipt of .the writ of this Court.

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
costs .
. N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.