Holding

Rule 3 is constitutionally valid, the Central Government’s power to relax rules and to review its orders is lawful, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by R. R. Verma and other direct recruits against the Union of India challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of their writ petition as infructuous and the grant of a certificate of fitness under Article 133. The petitioners argued that Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service‑Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 violated Article 14 by giving the Central Government unfettered discretion to relax service rules, that the discretion was mis‑used in their case, and that the Government lacked power to review its own orders. The Court held that the rule is a valid statutory provision intended to alleviate undue hardship, is not unconstitutional, and that the Central Government does possess a reserve power to relax rules and to review its earlier orders, all subject to judicial review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service‑Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 is unconstitutional for violating Article 14 by conferring arbitrary discretion.
Whether the Central Government’s exercise of the power to relax service rules in the present case was invalid.
Whether the Central Government has the authority to review its own earlier orders under the said rules.

Legislation cited

All India Services Act, 1951s. Section 3
Constitution of Indias. Article 133, s. Article 14

Subjects

Article 14Article 133All India ServicesRule 3Administrative discretionJudicial reviewService conditionsCentral Government power

Judgment

478

R. R. VERMA AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
April 11, 1980
B [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133-Writ Petition dismissed as infruc..
tuous-Grant of Certificate of fitness, propriety of.

All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary nuuters) Rules, 1960,
whether offends Article 14 of Constitution, as conferring arbitrary and un..
canalised power upon the Central Government to grant Y![laxation whenever- it
c pleased to do so.

Power to I'..eview its earlier orders by the Central G'overnment when such
a power of revielt.' is not expressly conferred by the rules.
One Sri Ahluv. alia a senior_ n1ember of the Indian Police 8ervice sought
1

to quash the decision of the Union of India dated 26·6-1976 whereby his year
D of allotment was fixed as 1965. When the Writ Petition of Sri Ahluwalia was
pending in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, some of the respondents
in that Writ Petition and one R. R. \ 7erma-all direct recruits, choose to file
a \Vrit Petition in the Delhi High Court questioning the notice dated June 29,
1973 calling upon them to subn1it representations against the year of allotmenb
proposed to be allotted to M/s. Sahney, Dhaliwal and Ahluwalia. After the
\Vrit Petition of Ahluw;ili;i wits allowed, and after the Central Government
E passed the. order dated July 27, 1979, pursuant to the direction issued by the
High Court of lfimachal Pradesh to .Union of India tG refix the seniority
and year of allotment to Sri Ahluwalia, the Delhi High Court dismissed the
\'\'rit Petition filed by the direct recruits as infructuous. The High Court, how-
ever granted -a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133
of the Constitutiori.
F Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The Writ Petition having been dismissed as iafroctuous it is
not proper on the part of the High Court to grant a certificate of fitness under
Article 133 Df the Constitution. [480G-HJ
2. Rule 3 of the AH. Jndb Services. (Conditions of Service-residuary
matters) Rules., 1960 is couched in a language suggestive of near-aut.ocratic
G power reminiscent of "bad old days" of the Imperial Raj but, the rule is not
ment to vest the Central Government with power to pass any order they
like \V.ith a view to promote the interests of a favoured Civil servant. It ls
really meant to relax. In appropr~ate cases, the relentless rigour of a mecbanicai
application of the rules,. so that civil servants may not be subjected to undue
and undeserved hardship. Sufficient guidance· can be had from the very role
and from the scheme of the various statutory provisions dealing with the con.-
ff · ditions of service of Members of the AU India Service. [481G-H, 482A-B]
3. Rule 3 is not unconstitutional on the ground that it vests an unfettered
discretion in the Government. Section 3 of the· All India Services Act enables.
R. R. VERMA V. UNION 479

the· Central Government in consultation with the Governments of the ~tes: A
concerned to make rules for the regulation of. recruitment, and the conditions
of service of persons appointed to an All Indra' Service. Pursuant to the power
given by Section 3 of the All India Services Act the Central Government bas·
made innumerable sets of rules, some common to all the All India Services
and some applicable separately to each of the All India Services. The All
India Services (Leave) Rules, the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, the All
; B
India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the all India Services Cfravelling
Allowance) Rules, and the All ladia Services (Conditions of Servite-residuary
matters) Rules are examples of rules made under Section 3 of the All India
Services ~>\.ct which are common to all the All India Services. The Indian
Police: Service (Cadre) Rules, the Indian Police Service (R.ecruitment) Rules~
the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, the Indian Police Service (Regu-
lation of Seniority) Rules are examples of rules made under section 3 of
the All India Services Act applicable to a single All India Service. namely, c
the Indian Police Service. The rules deal with countless matters ¥.'hich
concern a civil servant, such as creation of cadre, fixation of Cadre Strength,
recruitment, seniority, promotion, leave, allowances, conduct, discipline and
appeal, and a host of such other matters. The golden thread, which runs-
through the entire complex fabric or rules is the securing of honest and com·
petent civil servants. Integrity and efficiency are the hall marks of any Civil
service anywhere and they are what are contemplated and aimed at by the D
wide range of rules. The interest to be se·rved is always the public interest
and not individual interest. Public interest, in the matter of the conditions
of serviae of civil s~rvants, is best served by rules which are directed towards
efficiency and integrity. [482B-G & 483D]

Now very wide as the range covered by the rules is, the rules can never E
be exhaustive. Unforeseen and complex situations often arise. Very often it
is found that all too strict application -of a rule works undue hardship on a
civil servant, resuhing in injustice and inequity, causing disappointment and
frustration to the civil servant and finally leading to the defeat of the verv
objects aimed at by the rules namely efficiency and integrity of civil servants.
Hence it is that the Central Government is vested with a reserve Power under
ntle 3 tv deal with unforeseen and unpredicatable situations, and to relieve the
civil servants from the infliction cl undue hardship and to do justice and
equity. It does not mean that the Central Government is free to do wha_t they
like, regardless of right or wrong; nor does it n1ean that the Courts are power-
less to· correct them. The Central Government is. b-Ound to exercise the powe.r
in the public inte rest with a view to secure civil servants of efficiency and
1

integrity, and when and only when undue hardship is caused by the application
of the rules, the power to relax is to ~ exercised in a just and equitable G
manner but, again, only to the extent necessary for so dealing with the case
~foreovcr, the exercise of the power of relaxation like all other administrative
action affecting rights of parties is subject to judicial ·review on grounds no\\•
well known. [482G-H, 483A-C]

4. It is not correct to say that the principle that the power to review 1nust be
conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication iS applicable D
to decisions purely of an administrative nature. To extend the principle to
pure administrative decisions .wduld indeed lead to untoward and startling re-
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A su1ts. Surely, any Government must 'be free to alter its policy or its decision in
/
administrative matters, If they are to carry on their daily administration they
cannot be hide-bound by the rnles and restrictions of judicial procedure though
of course they are bound to obey all statutory requirements and also observe
the principles of natural justice where rights of parties may be affected. Again,
if administrative decisions" are reviewed, the decisions taken after revie\v are
subject to judicial review on all grounds on which an administrative decision
B may be questioned in a Court. [483F-H, 484A]

Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradvaniunsinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR
1970 SC 1273; D. N. Roy and S. K. Banerjee and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 522 and State of Assam and Anr. v. !. N. Roy Biswas
[1976t 2 S.C.R. 128, distinguished.

c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2686 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27-8-1979 of the Dell1i High
Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 844/78.
R. K. Garg and C. M. Nair for the Appellant.
H. S. Marwah for the Respondent No. 6.
D
V. M. Tarkunde .and P. P. Juneja for Respomient No. 7.
Lal Narain Sinha Att. Genl., Abdul Khader and Miss A. Subhashini
for the Union of India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E CHINNAl'PA REDDY, J.-The judgment in this appeal is really an
appendix to the judgment pronounced by us in Civil Appeal No. 2112
of 1979. The relevant facts may be gathered from that judgment.
The further events requiring to be mentioned are these : While the
Writ Petition filed by Ahluwalia in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
was pending, some of the respondents to the Writ Petition and one
F R. R. Verma all direct recruits, chose to file a Writ Petition in the
Delhi High Court questioning the notice dated June 29, 1979, calling
upon them to submit representations against the year of allotment
proposed to be allotted to Sahney, Dhaliwal and Ahluwalia. After
the Writ Petition of Ahluwalia was allowed, and after the Central
G Government passed the order dated July 27, 1979, pursuant to the
direction issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the Delhi
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the direct recruits as
infructuous. The High Court, however, granted a certificate of fitness
to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. There-
fore, this appeal. The Writ Petition having been dismissed as infruc-
H tuous we do not see how a certificate under Article 133 could have
been granted. But, we do not want to dismiss the appeal on that
preliminary ground. Sbri R. K. Garg, l~ed coonsel for the appel-
R. R. VERMA v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 481

!ants challenged the order of the Central Government dated July 27, A
1979 on three grounds : ( 1) Rule 3 of the All India Services (Con-
ditions of Service-residuary matters) Rules, offended Articte·14 of
the Constitution and was ultra-vires as it conferred arbitrary and
uncanalised power upon the Central Government to grant relaxation
whenever it pleased it to do so. (2) The discretion to relax the rules
B
was wrongly exercised in the present case. (3) The Central Govern-
ment wa~ powerless to review its earlier orders as such a power of
review was not expressly conferred by the rules.

The second question has already been considered by us in Civil
Appeal No. 2112 of 1979 and we have held that this was a fit case
for the exercise of the power of ·the Central Government to relax
c
the rules.

The first question is about the Constitutional validity of rule 3 of
the All India Services (Conditions of Service-residuary matters) Rules
1960. Rule 3 is as follows : D
"3. Power to relax rules and regulations in certain
cases.-Wherc the Central Government is satisfied that the
operation of-
(i) any rule made or deemed lO have been made under
the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951), E
i or
(ii) any regulation made under any such rule,
regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to
an All India Service causes undue hardship in any particular
F
case, it may, by order, dispense with or relax the require-
ments of that rule or regulation, as the case may be, to such
extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions, as it
may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a jUst iind
equitable manner".
G
The submission of Shri Garg was that the rule conferred upon the
Central Government absolute and arbitrary discretion, a discretion
left entirely to the satisfaction of. the Government, Government with
no prescribed objective standards or guidelines. It is true that the
rule is couched in a language suggestive of near-autocratic power
reminiscent of "bad old days" of the Imperial Raj but, we have no H
doubt that the rule is not meant to vest the Central Government with
power to pass any order they like with a view to promote the interests
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A of a favoured Civil servant. It is really meant to relax, in appro-
priate cases, the relentless rigour of a mechanical application of the
rules, so that civil servants may not be subjected to undue and un-
deserved hardship. Sufficient guidance can be had from the very rule
and from the scheme of the various statutory provisions dealing with
the conditions of service of Members of the· All India Service.
B
Section 3 of the All India Services Act enables the Central Govern-
ment in consultation with the Governments. of the States ·concerned
y
to make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of
service of persons appointed to an All India Service. Pursuant to
the power given by Section 3 of the All India Services Act the Central
c Government has made innumerable sets of rules, some common to all
the All India Services and some applicable separately to each. of the
All India Services. The All India Services (Leave) Rules, the All India
Services (Conduct)· Rules, the All India Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, the All India Services (Travelling Allowance) Rules,
D and the All India Services (Conditions of Service-residuary matters)
Rules are examples of rules made under Section 3 of the All India
Services Act which are common to all. the All India Services. The
Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, the Indian Police Service (Rec-
ruitment) Rules, the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, the
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rule8 are examples
E of rules made under section 3 of the All Indi'a Services Act appli- .
cable to a single AIL India Service namely, the Indian Police Service.
The rules, as may be seen, deal with countless matters which concern
a civH servant, such as creation of cadres, fixation of Cadre Strength~
recruitment, seniority, promotion, leave, allowances, conduct, discipline
and appeal, and a host of such other matters. The golden thread,
' if we may so cal! it, which runs through the entire complex fabric m
rules is the securing of honest and competent civil servants. Integrity
and efficiency are the hall marks of any civil service anywhere and
they are what are contemplated and aimed at by the wide range of rules.
The interest to be served is always the public interest and not indivi-
G liual interest. Public interest, in the matter of the conditions of
service of civil servants, is best served by rules which are directed
towards efficiency and integrity. Now, very wide .as the range covered
by the rules is, the rules can never be exhaustive. Unforeseen and •
complex situations often arise as will be obvious even from a bare
perusal of the cases reported in the Law Journals arising out of "service
B · controversies''. Very often it is found that an all too strict application of
a rule works undue hardship on a civil servant, resulting in injustice
and inequity, causing disappointment and frustration. to the civil

'
R. R. VERMA v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 483

servant and finally leading to the defeat of the very object A
aimed at by the rules namely efficiency and integrity of civil
servants. Hence it is that the Central Government is vested with a
reserve power under rule 3 to deal with unforeseen and unpredictable
ai.tuations, and to relieve the civil servants from the infliction of undue
hardship and to do justice and equity. It does not mean that the
Central Government is free to do what they like, regardless of right B
or wrong; nor does it mean that the Courts are powerless to correct
them. The Central Government is bound to exercise the power in the
public interest with a view to secure civil servants of efficiency and
integrity, and when and only when undue hardship is caused by the
application of the rules, the power to relax is to be exercised in a just
and equitable manner but, again, only to the extent necessary
c
for so dealing with the case. We do not have to add that the
exercise of the power of relaxation like all other administrative action
I, affecting rights of parties is subject to judicial review on grounds
now well known. Viewed in this light we do not think that
Rule 3 is unconstitutional on the ground that it vests an unfettered D
discretion in the Government.

The last point raised by Shri Garg was that the Central Government
had no power to review its earlier ·orders as the rules do not vest the
Government with any such power. Shri Garg relied_ on certain decisions
of this Court in support of his submission : Patel Narshi Thakerslli
E
& Ors. v. Pradvamunsinghii Ariunsinghii,(') D. N. Roy and S. K.
Bannerjee & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,(') and State of Assam &
Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas(•). All the cases cited by Shri Garg are
cases where the Government was exercising quasi judicial powers vest-
ed in them by statute. We do not think that the principle that the
power to review must be conferred by statute either specillcally or by F'
necessary implication is applicable to decisions purely of an adminis-
trative nature. To extend the principle to pure administrative deci-
sions would indeed lead to untoward and startling results. Surely, any
Go~ernment must be free to alter policy or its decision in adminis-
trative matters. If they are to carry on its their daily administration they
• cannot be hide-bound by the rules and restrictions of judicial G
procedure though of course they are bound to obey all statutory
requirements and also observe the principles of natural justice
where rights of parties may be affected. Here again, we empha-
sise that if administrative decisions are reviewed, the decisions
(I) A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1273.
(2) [1971] 2 S. C. R. 522.
(3) [1976] 2 S. C. R. 128.
•
l 1-289SCl/80
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A taken after review are subject to judicial review on all grounds
on which an administrative decision may be questioned in a Court.
We see no force in this_ submission of the learned counsel. The appeal
is, therefore, dismissed.

S.R. Appeal dismissed. •

•