Holding

“In special cases from among persons” refers to officers of outstanding merit and ability, and the existence of “special circumstances” must first be satisfied by the State Government, with the Central Government giving final approval, rendering the Tribunal’s quashing of the selection erroneous.

Summary

The petitioners, P.M. Bayas and the State of Maharashtra, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order quashing their selection to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) under the special selection provisions of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. The core issue was the interpretation of the phrases “in special cases from among persons” in Rule 4(1)(c) and “in special circumstances” in Rule 8(2), and which authority – the State Government or the Central Government – must first be satisfied that such circumstances exist. The Supreme Court held that “special cases” means officers of outstanding merit and ability, and that the State Government must initially determine the existence of special circumstances, with the Central Government giving final approval at the appointment stage. The Court also found that vacancies were indeed available under Rule 9, and that the Tribunal erred in requiring the Central Government to demonstrate the special circumstances. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s order set aside.

Issues considered

The meaning of “in special cases from among persons” in Rule 4(1)(c) of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954
The meaning of “in special circumstances” in Rule 8(2) of the Rules
Whether the State Government or the Central Government must first be satisfied about the existence of special circumstances
Whether vacancies were available for special recruits under Rule 9 of the Rules
Whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the selection of the petitioners

Subjects

special selectionIAS recruitmentspecial circumstancesRule 4(1)(c)Rule 8(2)State GovernmentCentral Governmentcivil service promotionIAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954appointment by selection

Judgment

P.M. BAYAS A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 23, 1993

(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) B

Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954:

Rules 4(1)(c) and 8(2)-Special selection-'In Special cases from
among persons'-Meaning of-'Special circumstances'-Existence of-Satis- C
faction of State Government in the first instance-Central Government's
role-Only at the time of appointment.

Words & Phrases:

"In special cases·from among persons" and "In Special circumstan- D
ces"-Meaning in the context of !AS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.

The Respondents - sobstantive members of the Maharashtra-Civil
Service- challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal the selec-
tion of the appellants to IAS by way of selection under the IAS (Recruit-
Y ment) Rules, 1954. They claimed that their names were placed on the select E
list for promotion to tAs, but they could not be appointed because the
vacancies occurring In the State were being filled by resorting to special
selection and appointing persons like the appellants from the non-State
Civil Service. Th~y also sought quashing of the appointment of five other
persons who had . already been appointed to 1AS by way of special selection. F
The Tribunal quashed the selection of the appellants \jl lAS, anci dismissed
'\ the application in respect of the other persons. Aggrieved by the said
judgment of the Tribunal quashing their selections, the appellants
prefe!Tfd the present appeals.

These appeals called for interpretation of the expression "In special G
cases from among persons" in Rule 4(1)(c) and the expression 'in special
circumstances" In ·Rule 8(2) of the. lAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.

Allowing tbe appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1; The expression "In special cases from •mong persons in· H .
567
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A S.4(1)(c) or the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 means the selection atl
special cases or the persons who have established their outstanding merit
and ability while serving the State. Members or the State Civil Service who
are not 'outstanding' but are only 'good' and 'very good' are also eligible
to be considered for appointment to IAS but under Rule 8(2) of the Rules,
it is only an 'outstanding' officer who is eligible. It is the outstanding merit
B
and ability which makes him a 'special case' in terms of Rule 8(2) of the
Rules. Rule 8(2) of the Rules read with Regulation 3 of the Reguiations
lays down the procedure for making the special selection provided under
Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules. The Central Government, being the appointing
authority to the IAS, has w be finally satisfied about the existence of the
C "special circumstances" as a condition precedent for making special
recruitment. The "special circumstances" are to be spelled-out from Rule
8(2) of the Rules read with Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Rule 8(2) ~-
which talks or ,"outstanding ability and merit" when read with Regulation
3(1) and 3(4A) of the Regulations makes it clear that the "special cir·
D cumstances" required to be st;en are (i) the existence of officers with 12
years or continuous strvice in a gazetted post under the State Government.
• other than State Civil Service Officers who are of outstanding merit and
ability and (ii) the satisfaction or the State Government that, in public
interest, it is necessary to consider such officers for promotion to the IAS.
(573 D·G)
E
1.2. Reading Rule 8(2) and the Regulations together it is clear that
the process of selection bas to be initiated by the State Government and
as such it is for the State Government in the first instance to be satisfied
regarding the existence of the "special circumstances". The Central
Government being the appointing authority has to finally approve the
F State Government's proposals which reach the Central Government
through the process of selection. (573 H; 574 A, E] r

1.3. In the Instance case, there were "special circumstances" before
the State Government to make recruitment under the Regulations. In the
G face of cMar pleadings on the record the Tribunal was not justified in
holding that there was no material on the record to show the existence of
"special circumstances". The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in asking the
Central Government to show the existence of "special circumstances" in
terms of Rule 8(2) or the Rules. The scheme of the Rules atid the Regula·
H lions clearly show that it is the State Government which has to be satisfied
P.M. BAYAS v. U.O.l. [KUWIP SINGH,J.] 569
.,.._ __

ftgllrdlng the existence or "special circumstances". The Central Govern- A
ment comes into the picture at the last stage when it makes the appoint-
ment under Regulation 3(4) and 3(4A) of the Regulations. [575 H, 576 A-BJ

1.4. It cannot be said that in terms or Rule 9(1) read with Rule
9(3)(a)(ii) or the Rules, no vacancies were made available for special
recruits. In fact the stand of the State Government before the Tribunal B
clearly shows that vacancies were available for appointment or the special
recruits. [576 C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1414 of
1993.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.1991 of the Central Ad-
~- ministracive Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No.556 of 1990.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 1415 of 1993. D

AND

Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1993.

Y V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, Ashok H. Desai, Harish N. E
Salve, N.B. Shetye, V.R. Manohar, P.H. Parekh, Soni! Dogra, Ms. Bina,
A.S. Bhasme, C.V. Subha Rao, Chander Uday Singh and Mukul Mudgal
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
KULDIP SINGH,J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

We are called upon to interpret the expression "in special cases from
among persons" in Rule 4(1)(c) and the expression "in special circumstan-
ces" in Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, G
1954 (the Rules).

S.H. Shoo! and three others (Civil Service Officers) who are substan-
tive members of the Maharashtra Civil Service challenged before the
Central Administrative Tribuna~ New Bombay Bench the selection of
W.G. Gurde and P.M. Bayas to the Indians Administrative Service by way H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A qf special selection under the Rules. They also sought quashing of the
appointment of five other persons (respondents 4 to 8 before the Tribunal)
who had already been appointed to the Indian Administrative Service
(IAS) by way of special selection. The Tribunal dismissed the application
of Shoo! and others so far as the five persons already appointed to the IAS,
B respondents 4 to 8, on the ground that the application was belated and
batted by limitation. The Tribunal, however, allowed the application so far
as Gurde and Bayas were concerned and quashed their selection to the
IAS. These two appeals by way of special leave are by Bayas and the State
of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Tribunal dated July 19, 1991.

C The case of the Civil Service Officers before the Tribunal was that
they were substantive members of Maharashtra Civil Service for about
W25 years and their names were placed on the select list for promotion ~·
tc) IAS since the years 1986/1988 but they could not be appointed to the
IAS because the vacancies occurring in the State of Maharashtra were
D being lilled by resorting to special selection and appointing persons like
the appellant Bayas and others.

We may at this stage notice the relevant Rules. Rules 4(1) and 8(2)
of the Rules are reproduced hereunder:

y
E "4. Method of recruitment of the Service. - (1) Recruit-
ment to the Service after the commencement of these
rules, shall be by the following methods, namely:

(a) by a competitive examination;

F (aa) by selection of persons from among the Emergency
commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned r
Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union "who were
commissioned on or after the 1st November, 1962 but
before the 10th January, 1968, or who had joined any
G pre-commission training before the later date, but who
were commissioned on or after that date".

(b) by promotion of substantive -member of a State Civil
Service;

H (c) by selection, in special cases from among persons, who
'~

P.M. BAYAS v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.1 571

bold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection A
with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a
State Civil Service.

8(2) The Central Government may, in special circumstan-
ces and on the recommendation of the State Government
+ concerned and in consultation with the Commission and B
in accordance with such regulations as the Central
Government may, after consultation with the State
Governments and the Commission, from time co time,
make, recruit to the Service any person of outstanding
ability and merit serving in connection with the affairs of c
the State who is not a member of the State Civil Service
or that State but who holds a gazetted post in a substantive
capacity.'

In exercise of the power under Rule 8(2) of the Rules the Central
Government bas framed the Regulations called 'Indian Administrative D
Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 (the Regulations).

Regulations 3(1), 3(2), 3(2A), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(4A) of the Regula-
tions which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:
E
'3(1) In accordance with the provision contained in sub-
rule (2) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, the State
Government may, from time to time, ~nsider the cases
of persons not belonging to the State Civil Service but
serving in connection with the affairs of the State or States
in the case of Joint Cadres, who - F

(i) are of outstanding merit and ability; and

(ii) have completed not less than 12·years of continuous
service in a gazetted post under the State Government or
in the case of Joint Cadre, under any one of the State
G
Governments constituting the Joint Cadre, holding that
post in a substantive capacity and propose the. names of
officers suitable for appointment to the service.

3(2) the Selection Committee set up in accordance with
_.,I

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.

A regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Ap-
pointment by Promotion) .Regulations, 1955, shall con-
sider the proposals of the State Government made in
sub-regulation (1) and recommend the names of such of
these officers, if any but not exceeding the number of
vacancies sought to be filled up by the State Government
B concerned under these regulations, during the next 12
months, as are in their opinion, suitable for appointment
to the Service. I
3(2A) the suitability of a person for appointment to the
_J
c Service shall lie determined by a scrutiny of his confiden· l
tial roll and by interviewing him.

3(3) The recommendations of the Selection Committee
made under Sub-regulation (2) shall be placed before the j
i
State Government concerned and the latter shall forward
D those recommendations to the Commission for approval
along with -

(i) the confidential record of the officers concerned; and
f
E (ii) the observations, if ·any, of the State Government on
the recommendatic)ns of,the Selection Committee.
}
3(4) On their being finally approved by the Commission, •
appointments of such officers to the Service shall be made _)
by the Central Government.
F
3{4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regula-
tion (4), the Central Government may not appoint any
person to the service under these regulations if it is of the
opinion that, during the period intervening between the
final approval by the Commission and the date of •
G
proposed appointment there occurs any deterioration in
the work of such officer or there is any other ground which
renders him unsuitable for appointment to the service or,
I
it is necessary and expedient so to do in public interest:

H Provided that no such decision shall be taken by the
P.M.BAYASv. U.0.1.[KULDIPSINGH,J.] S73

Central Government without consulting the Commission.' A
Special selection was held in the year 1990 under the Regulations
and B~yas and Gurde, on the criteria of outstanding merit and ability, were
selected to the IAS and their names were brought on the select list .. The
t Civil Service Offir.ers challenged their selection primarily on the ground B
that there was no material on the record to show that-there were 'special
circumstances' to the satisfaction of the Central Government. The Tribunal
accepted the contention and set a5ide the selection of Gurde and Bayas.

We may examine the scheme of the Rules and Regulations. Rule 4(1)
of the Rules provides four sources of recruitment to the IAS. The competi- C
tive examination and by promotion of substantive members or' the State
CiVil Service are the two main sources of recruitment. Rule 4(1)(c)
provides recruitment to IAS 'by selection, in special cases from among
persons, who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection
with the affairs of a State and who are not members of the State Civil D
Service". "In special cases from among persons" means the selection as
special cases of the persons who have established their outstanding merit
and ability while serving the State. Members of the State Civil Service who
are not 'outstanding' but are only 'good' and 'very good' ar.e also eligible
to be considered for appointment to (AS but under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, E
it is only an 'outstanding' officer who is eligible. It is the outstanding merit
and ability which makes him a 'special case' in terms of Rule 8(2) of the
Rules. Rule 8(2) of the Rules read with Regulation 3 of the Regulations
lays down the procedure for making the special selection provided under
Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules. The Central Government, being the appointing
authority to the IAS, has to be finally satisfied about the existence of the
F
"special circumstances" as a condition precedent for making special rt:cr,liit-
ment. The "special circumstances" are to be spelled-out from Rule 8(2) of
the Rules read with Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Rule 8(2) which talks
of 'outstanding ability and merit' when read with Regulation 3(1) and
3(4A) of the Regulations makes it clear that the "special circumstances" G
required to be seen are (i) the existence of officers with 12 years of
continuous service in a gazetted post under the State Government - other
than State Civil Service Officers - who are of outstanding merit and ability
and (ii) the satisfaction of the State Government that, in public interest, it
is necessary to consider such officers for promotion to the IAS. H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.
)..__
I A Reading Rule 8(2) and the Regulations together it is further clear
that the process of selection has to be initiated by the State Government
and as such it is for the State Government in the first instance to be
satisfied regarding the existence of the "special circumstances" as culled-out
by us in the para above.
B t
It is the State Government which proposes the names of suitable
officers under the Regulations for appointment by selection to the !AS.
The proposals of the State Government are considered by the Selection
Committee and its recommendations are place before the State Govern-
ment. Thereafter the State Government sends the recommendations
c alongwith its observations, if any, to the Union Public Service Commission
for approval. When finally approved by the Commission the appointments
are made by the Central Government. Regulation 3( 4A) further provides
·-<
that the Central Government may not appoint any person if it is of the
opinion that, during the period intervening between the final approval by
D the Commission and the date of proposed appointment, there occurs any
deterioration in the work of such officer or there is any other ground which
renders him unsuitable for appointment or it is necessary and expedient so
to do in public interest. It is, thus, obvious that the "special circumstances 11
as required under the Rules and the Regulations have to be seen by the
y
E State Government. The Central Government being the appointing authority
has to finally approve the State Government's proposals which reach the
Central Government through the process of selection.

The Tribunal allowed the application of the Civil Service Officers on
-.
F the sh~rt ground that the Central Government failed to show the existence
of "special circumstances" for making the recruitment under Rule 4(1)(c)
read with rule 8(2) of the Rules and the Regulations. The Tribunal held as
under:

G
'
1
As we are of the view that no special circumstances"
1

existed and that the special circumstances, if any, have not
'
been pointed out by the Central Government which has
kept mum apart froni taking the plea that 'special
circumstances' existed and that there was not violation of
rules, this method of selection adopted by the respondents
H in selecting respondent Nos.8 & 10 is violative of rules in
P.M. BAYAS v. U.0.1. [KUWIP SINGH, J.) S7S

the absence of condition precedent for their selection.' A
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the
conclusions reached by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal
fell into patent error in setting aside the selection of Gurde and Bayas.

The State Government in its written reply fded before the Tribunal B
stated as under:

'It is, therefore, clear that these are the special cases
where the officers of outstanding merit and ability are only
held .eligible for consideration by the Selection Committee
unlike in case of S.C.S. Officers who are to be graded
c
'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and 'unfit' and even an
officer in 'good' category can be appointed to IA.S.........
The respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have been found to be the
officers of outstanding ability and merit by the Selection
Committee and, therefore, the averments made by the D
applicants ill this paragraph that these officers arc less
meritorious is their own presumption........ · It is only in
these special circumstances when such officers become
available, that recruitment to the l.A.S. is made by the
method of selection. Appointments have been made to the E
l.A.S. under the l.A.S. (Appoiotment by Selection)
Regulations, 19S6 only_ when outstanding Officers could
become available.'

The State Government io its written reply before the Tribunal jus-
tified the recruitment under the Regulations by stating as under: F
'It is submitted that the need of the officers having ex-
perience in the fields other than the field of Revenue
Administration is ever increasiog with the multiplicity of
welfare -scheme of Government and Government, t~ere
fore, feels the need to utilise the services of experienced
G
and outstanding officers from the fields other than the
S.C.S. Officers"

We .,..e satisfied that ihere were 'special circunistances" before the
State Government to make recruitment under _the Regulations. In the face H
516 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 11993) 2 S.C.R.
.;...__
A of clear pleadings on the record the Tribunal was not justified in holding
that there was no material on the record to show· the existence of 'special
circumstances'. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in asking the Central
Gove1"J1111ent to show the existence of 'special circumstances' in terms of
Rule 8(2) of the Rules. As interpreted by us the scheme of the Rules and
B the Regulations clearly show that it is the State Government which has to
+
be satisfied regarding the existence of 'special circumstances'. The Central
Government comes into the picture at the last stage when it makes the
appbintment under Regulation 3(4) and 3(4A) of the Regulations.

Learned counsel for the respondents-Civil Service Officers invited
c our attention to the proviso lo Rule 9(1) read with _Rul6"9(3)(a)(ii) of the
Rules and argued that in terms of these Rules no vacancies are made
~
available for the special recruiis and as such appellant Bayas and Gurde
cannot be offered appointments lo the !AS. The point as such was not
raised before the Tribunal. We have no material on the record to support
D the contention of the learned counsel. On the other hand, the stand of the
State Government before the Tribunal clearly shows that he vacancies were
available for the appointment of Bayas _and Gurde in terms of Rule 9 of
the Rules. The relevant extract. is reproduced hereunder:

'In fact, rules clearly provide that upto 15% of the promo- y
E
· lion posts can be filled ·up by appointment of the non-SCS
Officers by selection. This limit has not been exceeded by
the appointment of the Respondents Nos.4 to 8 and also
if the Respondent Nos.9 and 10 are also appointed.
Respondent Nos. 9 and -i.O have been selected by the
F Selection Committee against the vacancies which are
within the limit prescribed under Rule 9 of the Recruit-.
ment Rules.'

We, therefore, aliow the 'appeals, set aside the impugned judgment
of the _Tribunal dated July 19, 1991 and dismiss the application of the Civil
G
Service Officers before the Celltral Administration Tribunal. No costs.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlcTION: Civil Appeal No. 1416 cl
,...
1993.

H Special leave granted.
P.M.BAYASv. U.0.1.[KULDIPSINGH,J.] 577
.A
In view of the our judgment in Civil Appeal No.1414 of 1993 arising A
out of Special Leave Petition (civil) No.17028 of 1991 dated March 23, 1993
this appeal is allowed and the interim order dated September 9, 1991 in
O.A. No.530 of 1991 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bombay is quashed. No costs.
f- G.N. Appeals allowed.

y