UNION OF INDIAversusMOHAN SINGH RATHORE AND ANR.

                             UNION OF INDIA                                          A
                                        v.
                MOHAN SINGH RATHORE AND ANR.

                            SEPTEMBER 2, 1996

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
                                                                                     B

      Service Law:

      Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955,
                                                                                     c
       Regulation 7/9-lndian Police Service-Allotment from State
Quota-Case of respondent approved by Union Public Service Commis-
sion-State to issue "no deterioration ce1tificate" so that Union Govemment
could issue orders-Respondent's name not included in the Cenificate-How-
ever, after his retirement State Govemment wrote to Union of India that he           D
was entitled for appointment as he was "well deserving candidate''-<:onse-
quently he could not be appointed to /PS, though he was found suitable and
approved by UPSC-Tribunal directing his appointment-Held, T1ibunal's
order illegal as it -had directed, without referring to any of the relevant rules,
to appoint him--Hence set aside-However Union of India directed to include           E
his name in the appointment notificati :m dated October 4, 1988 as a select
list candidate and give him the order of appointment-Respondent would be
entitled .to all the retiral benefits 011 that basis.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12089 of
~                                                                                    F
      From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 793 of 1992.

    Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, P. Par-                G
meshwaran for the Appellants.

     Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, M.K. Singh, Ms. Kusum Sharma
and K.S. Bhati for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                               H
                                  419
    420                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         Leave granted.

          We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

         The respondent was appointed in the Rajasthan State Police Service.
  He was put in the select list on December 28, 1987. The Union Public
B Service Commission had approved it on February 2, 1988. He was due to
  retire on May 31, 1988 on attaining superannuation. His name along with
  eight other candidates, was included for allotment from the State quota to
  the Indian Police Service. The requirements of tfie Indian Police Service
  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, the "Promotion
C Regulation") envisage that the Union Public Service Commission, under
  Regulation 7, shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with
  other documents received from the State Government and, unless it con-
  siders any change necessary,.it shall approve the list. Sub-regulation (4) is
  relevant in this case which provides that the select list shall ordinarily be
D in force until its review and revision effected under sub-regulation (4) or
  (5) is approved under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, is finally
  approved under sub-regulation (2). As per regulation 7(3), the list as finally
  approved by the UPSC shall form the select list. Proviso thereto indicates
  thus:

E            "Provided further that in the event of grave lapse in the conduct
             or performance of duties on the part of any member of the State
             Police Service included in the Select List, a special review of the
             select list may be made at a time at the instance of the State
             Government and the Commission may, if it so thinks fit, remove
F            the name of such member of the State Police Service from the
             Select List."

           Regulation 9 of the Promotion Regulations, deals with appointment
     of State Police Service officers to Indian Police Service. Sub-regulation (2)
     thereof reads as under :
G
             "It shall not ordinarily be necessary to consult the Commission
             before such appointments are made, unless during the period
             intervening between the inclusion of the name of a member of the
             State Police Service in the Select List and the date of the proposed
H            appointment there occurs any deterioration in the work of the
                         U.0.l.v. M.S.RATI!ORE                            421

        member of the State Police Service or there is any other ground          A
        which, in the opinion of the State Government or the Central
        Government, is such as to render him unsuitable for appointment
        to the service."

      While making recommendation, the State Government is required to
furnish in this regard the "no deterioration certificate" of the selected        B
candidates as per the letter No. 11/4/73-AIS(l) dated May 22, 1973 of the
Union of India, Administrative Reforms of the Department of Personnel
which has been made part of the Promotion Regulations as decision No. 9
which reads as under :

        "Having regard to the provision contained in the proviso to the
                                                                                 c
        sub-regulation (4) of regulation 7 of IAS (Appointment by Promo-
        tion) Regulations, 1955, the State Government/Joint Cadre
        Authority, while making recommendations or the appointment of
        a member of State Civil Service to Indian Administrative Service,
        may forward a certificate on the following lines :                D

            "The State Government/the Joint Cadre Authority certifies that
        subsequent to the inclusion of the name of Shri ........ in the Select
        List, there has been no deterioration in his work as to render him
        unsuitable for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service
                                                                                 E
        nor has any lapse in his conduct or performance of duties in his
        part come to the notice of the State Government/the Joint Cadre
        Authority."

      This requirement is mandatory for the reason that before appoint-
ment of the persons to the Indian Police Service, under the Promotion F
Regulations, the Union Government should receive the certificate from the
concerned State Government or the Union Territory that there has been
no deterioration in the service of the incumbent in the interregnums as it
is mandatory to know the continued quality, integrity, honesty and efficien-
cy of the concerned officer. The State Government had not sent any "no
deterioration certification" in relation to the respondent before the ap- G
pointment notification dated October 4, 1988 in relation to others, came to
be issued. Since it did not contain the name of the respondent, he could
not be appointed. When he filed O.A. No. 793/92 in the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by order dated August 7, 1995 the
Tribunal directed the appellant to appoint the respondent on par with his H
    422                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A juniors. It is seen that the Tribunal does not appear to have had any
    knowledge of the operation of the provisions of Promotion Regulations. It
    treated. them on par with general principles of service jurisprudence and
    directed, without referring to any of relevant rules, the appellant-Govern-
    ment to appoint him. Therefore, on principle of law the order of the
    Tribunal is obviously illegal. It is accordingly set aside.
B
           However, the question is: what would be the relief that could be
    granted to the respondent. It is seen that the State Government did not
    forward the "no deterioration certificate" in relation to the respondent and
    after the retirement of the respondent the State Government had written
C   a letter to the Union of India on February 21, 1989 stating therein that the
    respondent was entitled for appointment as he was "well deserving" can-
    didate. Nothing had prevented the State Government to send the "no
    deterioration certificate" of the respondent along with certificates in rela-
    tion to other candidates when he was due to retire. It is seen that they
    forwarded the select list on April 11, 1988 to the Government of India and
D   the respondent was due to retire on May 31, 1988. When such was the
    incumbency nothing would have prevented the State Government ·from
    forwarding the letter. Consequently, the respondent had to lose the chance
    for being appointed to the IPS Cadre though he was found suitable and
    approved by the UPSC. Under tliese circumstances, we think that ap-
E   propriate direction would be that the Union of India may include his name
    in the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 as a select list
     candidate and give him the order of appointment letter. Consequently, the
    respondent would be entitled to all the retiral benefits on that basis.

           The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
F
    G.N.                                                    Appeal disposed of.