Holding

Eligibility for appointment by selection under Regulation 4 is to be measured from 1 January of the year in which the State Government decides to propose names, i.e., 2002, making the respondent ineligible.

Summary

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a letter on 25 October 2001 calling for proposals for the IAS (Appointment by Selection) for the year 2002, but mistakenly wrote "2001" in the subject line. The first respondent, G. Limbadri Rao, argued that the typo meant the eligibility year was 2001, and since he had not turned 54 by 1 January 2001, he should be considered. The High Court accepted this view and allowed his writ petition, holding that the age limit should be measured against 1 January 2001. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Regulation 4 of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 and held that eligibility is to be reckoned from 1 January of the year in which the State decides to propose names, i.e., 2002, rendering Rao ineligible. The Court also ruled that a typographical error in the letter’s subject cannot alter the statutory construction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the age‑eligibility provision in Regulation 4(iii) of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 should be applied with reference to the year mentioned in the subject line of the State Government's letter or the year stated in its substantive content.
Whether a typographical error in the subject heading of the State Government's letter can change the year of eligibility for appointment by selection.

Subjects

service lawIAS appointment by selectionage eligibilityregulation interpretationtypographical erroradministrative law

Judgment

A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
v.
G. LIMBADRI RAO AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2004

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Service Law:

/AS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997-Regulation 4-
Appointment by selection to the Post of /AS-Preparation of Select list for
c year 2002-/nadvertently year wrongly mentioned as 2001 in Government
Order-Eligibility of officers reckonedfrrJm 1.1.2002- Claim of officer for
being considered for appointment demanding reckoning of eligibility from
1. I. 200 I treating the Select List for year 2001 ~/aim rejected by Tribunal-
High Court allowed the claim on the ground that the eligibility of officers
D were to be reckoned from 1. 1.2001-0n appeal, 'held: The officer is not
entitled/or consideration/or appointment-As per the provisions a/Selection
Regulations the eligibility of the officers is to be reckoned from 1st January
in the year in which SCM meets i.e. 1. 1.2002 in the present case.

State Government, by its letter dated 25.10.2001 decided to send
E necessary proposal to Union Public Service Commission for preparation
of Select List of Non-State Civil Service Officers for the year 2002 for
appointment to the IAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection)
Regulations, 1997. In the subject heading of the letter '2.001' was
inadvertently given instead of '2002'. However, in the contents of the
F letter the year was correctly given as '2002'. As per the Selection
Regulations, officers having attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002
were not eligible for consideration for appointment. First respondent,
who had attained 54 years of age on 1.1.2002 was not considered, hence
he filed application before Administrative Tribunal seeking direction
for considering him for appointment on the ground that in view of the
G letter the Select List was for 2001, and he had not attained 54 years of
·-,.
age on 1.1.2001. Tribunal rejected his claim. Respondent's Writ Petition
before High Court was allowed on the ground that eligibility of the
officers were to be reckoned from 1.1.2001. Hence the present appeal.

H Allowing the appeal, the Court
618
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 619

HELD: The first respondent is not eligible and entitled for· A
considering his name for appointment to the post of IAS by selection.
High Court is not correct in allowing the Writ Petition of the first
respondent by misquoting Regulation 4 of IAS (Appointment by Selection)
Regulations, 1997. It is seen from the records that for the recruitment
year 2002, the proposals were received in that year and the eligibility of B
officers were reckoned from the 1st of January, 2002 as per the provisions
of the Selection Regulations. The High Court's observation that the
eligibility of the officers were to be reckoned from 1.1.2001 is a misinter-
pretation of the Rules and Regulations and this interpretation would
bring to naught the entire selection process undertaken by the Union
Public Service Commission not only for the State Government but for C
all the State/Cadres where selections have been made under the Selection
Regulations. The interpretation of the Rules by the High Court is not
a harmonious construction of interpretation of the Rules and Regulations
and if not set aside would have wide scale implications on the selection
of officers for appointment to IAS under the Selection Regulations since
D
the Selection Committee would then be required to consider the eligibility
of the officers of a previous and not the current year. Moreover, the
High Court has given relief to the first respondent herein under an
inadvertent typographical error in a letter of the State Government
dated 25.10.2001 and this essentially circumvents the letter and spirit of
the statutory Rules and Regulations. It is amply clear from the Regulation E
that eligibility of officers is reckoned from the 1st of January in the year
in which the SCM meets which would be 1.1.2002 in the instant case.
(627-C; 626-D-G; 627-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6234 of2004.
F
From the Judgmnent and Order dated 13.8.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. Nos. 9653 of 2002.

B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Subba Rao and P. Parmeswaran
for the Appellant.
G
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy (N.P.), B. Krishna Prasad (NP) for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Leave granted. H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The above appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.8.2002
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.9653
of 2002 following the judgment of the High Court in Writ. Petition No.9182
of 2002 allowing the writ petition filed by·the first respondent herein.
1

During the year 200 I, as an advance action for the year 2002, the State
B Government of Andhra·Pradesh's General Administrative Depanment, vide
their D.O. letter No.1875/Spl.A/2001-02 dated'25.l0.2001 decided to send·
necessary proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation
of select list of Non-State Civil Service Officers for the year 2002 for
appointment to the IAS under provisions of the IAS (Appointment. by
c Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations").
By this Jetter, all the Secretaries of the State Government Departments had
been requested to furnish the names of eligible Non-SCS officers for
appointment to the post of IAS (Appointment by Selection) for sending
proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of the
select list of2002·for appointment to the IAS unCier the selection Regulations.
D In the "subject" heading of the said letter, the State Government had
inadvertently indicated that proposals are being called for preparation of the
select list ofNon-SCS officers for the year 20Ql instead of2002. However,
in paragraph 2 of the said Jetter, it was correctly stated that the State
Government had decided to send the proposal to the Union Public Service
E Commission for preparing the select list of2002 for appointment to the IAS.
In paragraph 3 of the letter, it was stated that tl:iose candidates who have not
crossed 54 years of age as on 1.1.2002 were eligible.

Aggrieved by the non-inclusion, the first respondent herein (G.Limbadri
Rao), a Non-SCS officer of Andhra Pradesh, had filed O.A.No.1711 of2001
F against the Union of India before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad. The first respondent raised three contentions before the Tribunal:

a) As in the subject. of the letter, it was mentioned that
proposal for preparation of the select list for appointment of
Non-SCS officers to the IAS for the year 200 l is to be
G forwarded to the UPSC. The applicant contended that the
mention of the year 2002 in para 2 and para 3 of the letter was
a mistake. The year 200 I mentioned in the subject only is
correct.

H b) In terms of the proviso to Regulation 4(iii) of the IAS
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 621

(Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, the State A
Government shall not consider the case of a person who has
attained the age of 54 years on the 1st day of January of the
year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for
the consideration of the Committee. Thus the applicant
contended that as per the letter of the State Government issued B
on 25.10.2001, wherein in the subject it was mentioned that
proposal for pieparation of the select list for appointment of
Non-SCS officers to the IAS for the year 2001 is to be
forwarded to the UPSC, the select list of2001 is to be prepared
and not the select list of 2002. Therefore, he is eligible for
consideration as on 1.1.2001 as he has not crossed the age of c
54 years.

c) The Government of India amended Rule 16 of the
All India Services death-cum-retirement Benefit
Rules, 1958 (sub-Rµle (1) enhancing the age of
D
retirement from 58 to 60 years in respect of AIS
officers including IAS. It is, therefore, just and
proper to proportionately increase the maximum
age limit to 56 years under Regulation 5(3) of the
IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997.
Failure to do so by the Government of India is E
affecting the fundamental right of the applicant who
is eligible and entitled to be considered for
appointment to the post of IAS.

The Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.5 .2002 upheld the decision of the
F
State Government not to include his name in the eligibility list for
consideration by the Selection Committee for preparation of the select list
of 2002. The Tribunal observed as follows:

"The issue for our consideration is whether the D.O. letter issued
by the Secretary to Government in GAD to the other Secretaries G
calling for proposals amounts to the decision of the State to propose
names for consideration of the Committee. We are of the opinion
that the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the
applicants not well founded. The subject matter of the D.O. letter
contains a typographical mistake as is clear from a plain reading for
H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the letter. Even after receipt of the proposal from all the departments,
substantial amount of time is taken to scrutinise each one of these
proposals to be received from various Secretaries to Government.
Thereafter the Secretary to the Government in the GAD submits the
consolidated proposals for consideration of the Government to
B shortlist the names. Mere calling of the proposals from the various
departments does not confer on the applicants a right for coRsideration
of their cases as laid down under the Regulations. The argument
relating to enhancing of age from the existing limit of 54 years to
56 years as prayed for by the applicants is a matter impinging on
the policy of the Central Government. We are of the view that it
c does not constitute an issue applicable to the applicants alone. We
refrain from passing any orders on the subject as the applicants had
been permitted to withdraw MA 122/02 in OA 171112001 during
the admission hearing on 8.4.2002".

D Aggrieved by the dismissal of his O.A., the first respondent herein filed
Writ Petition No.9653 of 2002 in the High Court challenging these orders.
Respondent No. I herein prayed to quash the order of the Tribunal and to
direct the respondent~authorities therein that the first respondent herein is
eligible for consideration for appointment by selection to the IAS as per
Regulation 4 of the Regulations and also to declare that the action of the
E Government of India in not revising the date of eligibility from 54 years to
56 years as done in the case oflAS (appointment by Competitive Examinations)
Regulations, 1955 i.e., 28 years to 30 years under Regulation 4(b)(ii) is
discriminative which affect his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
F
The High Court allowed the writ petition for the same reasons as
recorded in the judgment/order dated 13.8.2002 in Writ Petition No. 9182
of 2002 and set aside the impugned judgment dated 2.1.200 I. The writ
petition was, accordingly, allowed and consequent directions were also
jssued. The High Court, however, rejected the contention of the first
G respondent herein to consider his case for increasing the age on the ground
that such a relief cannot be granted by the Court and that any such direction
from the High Court would amount to compel the respondent-authorities to
act contrary to law.

H The judgment passed in Writ Petition No.9182 of 2002 which was
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 623

passed on the same date, has also been filed a~ annexure in this appeal. In A
that, the High Court observed as under:

" ..... In the instant case, the petitioner has not crossed the age
of 54 years as on the first day of January, 2001. There is no option
left to the State Government except to consider the case of the B
petitioner for such inclusion since he has not attained the age of 54
years as on 1.1.2001. The attainment of age of 54 years is with
reference to the first day of January of the year in which the decision
is taken to propose the names for consideration of the Committee
and not with reference to the vacancies as such. What is crucial is
the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names. C
Admittedly, the decision to submit the proposals has
been taken and accordingly, proposals have been called for
during October, 2001 for the preparation of select list for the year
2002.
D
For the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by the respondents
not to include the n.ame of the petitioner on the ground that he has
attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002 is absolutely unsustainable.
The respondents have committed an error in referring to the age of
the petitioner as crossing 54 years as on 1.1.2002 i.e., to say with
reference to the year in which the vacancies have arisen. The crucial E
requirement is that one should not cross the age of 54 years as on
the day of first day of January of the year in which the State
Government has taken decision to propose the names for consideration
of the Committee. The year of 200 l alone is relevant. The crucial
date is 1st January, 2001. Admittedly, as on that date, the petitioner F
has not crossed the age of 54 years."

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the above appeal by way of
special leave has been filed befol'.e this Court. Though the service of notice
on all the respondents is complete, none appears for the respondents.
G
We heard Mr. B. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing
for the appellant. Learned ASG contended that the construction placed by
the High Court on Regulation 4 is wholly wrong and that the State
Government has to consider the case of the first respondent herei~ for
inclusion since he has not attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2001. The H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A High Court erred in holding that the vacancy has to be filled with reference.
to the year in which the vacancy has arisen. Concluding his arguments,
learned ASG submitted that the view of tlle High Court is unsustainable and
is liable to be set aside by this Court.

In the background facts of this case, the following question oflaw arises
B for consideration by this Court:

"Whether the High Court is justified in holding that the first
·respondent is entitled to be included for consideration for appointment
by selection to the IAS even though he had attained the age of 54
c years on 1.1.2002 .:"

In other words,· the short question that falls for consideration in the
instant appeal· is as to whether the respondent have committed any illegality
in considering the case of the first respondent for non-inclusion in the
proposals to be sent to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation
D of the select list of Non-State Civil Services Officers for the year 2002 for
appoilltment to the IAS on the ground that the first respondent has attained
the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002.

To appreciate the contention of the appell;:int herein, Regulation 4 of
E the Regulations is extracted below: · .

"State Government to send proposals for consideration of the
· Committee:

(1) 'The State Government shall consider the case of a
F person not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in
connection with the affairs of the State who,

(i) · is of outstanding merit and ability' and

(ii) holds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity and
G
(iii) has completed not less than 8 years of continuous service
under the State Government on the first day of January
of the year in which his case is being considered in any
post which has .been declared equivalent to the post of
Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service and propose
H
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 625

the person for consideration of the Committee. The A
number of persons proposed for consideration of the
Committee shall not exceed five times the number of
vacancies proposed to be filled during the year.

Provided that the State Government shall not consider
the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on
B
the first day of January of the year in which the decision is
taken to propose the names for the consideration of the
Committee.

Provided also that the State Government shall not C
consider the case of person who, having been included in an
earlier select list, has not been appointed by the Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of Regulation
9 of these Regulations."

There is no dispute whatsoever before us that the first respondent's date D
of birth is 20.1.1947 and he has attained the age of 54 years as on 20.1.2001.
It is the case of the first respondent that the other respondents have set in
motion, the selection process on25.l0.2001 calling for the proposals of the
eligible Non-State Civil Services Officers for consideration of their cases for
inclusion in the select list. It was further contended that the name of the first
E
respondent ought to have been included in the said list as he satisfies all the
requirements. As is evident from the impugned order dated 2.1.2002, the
respondents-authorities refused. to include the name of the first respondent
herein solely on the ground that the proposals are required to be sent in
respect of the vacancies that have arisen during 2001 and that are available
as on 1.1.2002 and by which date the first respondent herein attained 54 years F
of age as on 1.1.2002.

We have already extracted Regulation 4 of the Regulations which would
make it clear that the State Government while considering the proposals is
required to consider the case of the person not belonging to the State Civil
Services but serving in connection with the affairs of the State who is of
G
outstanding merit and ability and holding a Gazetted post in a substantive
capacity and ha5 completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under
the State Government on the first day ofJanuary of the year in which he has
been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil
Services. The State Government is required to propose the names of such H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A persons who possess such qualifications for consideration of the Committee.

However, the proviso mandates that the State Government shall not
consider the case of the person who has attained the age of 54 years on the
first day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the
names for consideration of the Committee.
B
The first respondent herein contended that as is evident from the D.O.
Jetter dated 25.10.2001, the State Government has taken a decision to send
necessary proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation
of the select list of Non-State Civil Services Officers for the year 2002 for
c appointment to the IAS under the provisions of the Regulations.

In our opinion, the High Court is not correct in allowing the writ petition
of the first respondept by misquoting Regulation 4. It is seen from the records
that for the recruitment year 2002, the proposals were received in that year
and the eligibility of officers were reckoned from the 1st of January, 2002
D
as per the provisions of the selection Regulations. The High Court's
observation that the eligibility of the officers were to be reckoned from
1.1.2001 is a misinterpretation of the Rules and Regulations and this
interpretation would bring to naught the entire selection process undertaken
by the Union Public Service Commission not only for the Government of
E Andhra Pradesh but for all the State/Cadres where selections have been made
under the selection Regulations. The interpretation of the Rules by the High
Court is not a harmonious construction of interpretation of the Rules and
Regulations and if not set aside would have wide scale implications on the
selection of officers for appointment to the IAS under the selection Regulations
since the Selection Committee would then be required to consider the
F
eligibility of the officers of a previous and not the current year. Moreover,
the High Court has given relief to the first respondent herein under an
inadvertent typographical error in a letter of the State Government dated
25.10.2001 and this essentially circumvents the letter and spirit of the
statutory Rules and Regulations. The typographical error in the D.O. letter
G dated 25.10.2001 in the "subject" as specified:- IAS Select List of Non-
S.C.S. Officers for appointment to the IAS under IAS (Appointment by
Selection) Regulations, 1997 for the year 2001 - Proposals - Called for.
However, in the remaining paras, the position has been made clear. The
eligibility was as on 1.1.2002 as indicated in paragraphs .2 & 3, that the
proposals had been called for from the various departments.
H

•
GOVT. OF INDIA v. G.L. RAO [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 627

It is amply clear from the Regulation that eligibility of officers is A
reckoned from the 1st of January in the year in which the SCM meets which
would be 1.1.2002 in the instant case.

The proviso to Regulation 4 clearly states that the State Government
shall not consider the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years
on the first day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to B
propose the names for consideration of the Committee.

In the instant case, as already noticed, the proposal was sent by the State
Government in January, 2002. Therefore, on 1.1.2002, the first respondent
has completed the age of 54 years. C
In our opinion, the first respondent is not eligible and entitled for
considering his name for appointment to the post of IAS by selection.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgement passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unsustainable and D
is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. However, we
order no costs.

K.K.T. App~al allowed.