S. RAMANATHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                                S. RAMANATHAN
                                           11.
                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                 DECEMBER 7, 2000

B                 (G.B. PATTANA!K AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]


           Service law :

           Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ of mandamus-Failure by
C appropriate authority to conduct triennial review of cadre strength as per
     Rules in time-Held, mandamus cannot be denied when no reasons are given
    for not conducting the review-Rule 4-lndian Police Service (Cadre) Rules,
     1954- All India Service Act, 1951.

D          Appellants are State Pollce Service Officers, who have been promoted
    to the Indian Police Service. Central Government, under provisions of the All
    lndin Service Act, 1951 framed the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954
    [Cadre Rules! in consultation with all State Governments. As per Rule 4 of
    the Cadre Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the Central Government to re-
    determine the strength and composition of each cadre at intervals of every
E   three years. This triennial review is necessary for preparation of select lists
    for promotions under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
    Regulntions, 1955. The appropriate authority did not conduct the triennial
    review regularly with the result the appellants did not get promotion to the
    Indian Police Service in time. The triennial review, which was due in 1987,
F   was initiated in 1989 and completed in 1991 with an increase in the cadre          •
    strength. The appellants appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal
    seeking mandamus on the ground of inaction of the appropriate authority to
    have triennial review in time as per the Rules and consequential directions
    for reconsideration of the appellants for promotion to the post of Indian Police
    Service from an anterior date. The Tribunal, analysing the factual position,
G   concluded that there has been no triennial review for re-determination of the
    cadre strength as per the Cadre Rules, but, however, refused to issue
    mandamus as no prejudice was caused to the appellants. Hence these appeals.

          The appellants contended that when statutory rules and regulations
H provide for review of cadre strength within a specified period, it is the duty of
                                         450
                         S. RAMANATHAN v. U.0.1.                           451
 the authorities to enforce the concerned provisions and review the cadre         A
 strength and failure to do so will entitle the appellants to have a mandamus
 from the Court. The appellants further contended that there was no explanation
 from the Union of India for not doing the triennial review in time.

       The respondents contended that the appellants did not make a specific
 prayer before the Tribunal seeking a mandamus for having a triennial review      B
 as per the Rules in time and therefore the appellants should not be allowed to
 raise the matter after so many years which would unsettle the settled
 questions.

       Disposing the appeals, the Court
                                                                                  c
         HELD : 1.1. The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed
  by Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (I) of Section
 3 of the All India Service Act, 1951. The language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4,
 as it stood prior to its amendment, is rather peremptory in nature and thus it
 requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and D
 composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government
 concerned and make such alteration therein as it deems fit. It is true that llD
 infraction of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an
 employee for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But it cannot be
 denied that if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation
 is forth-coming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances E
 llnder which the exercise could not be undertaken. The aggrieved party may
well approach a Court and a Court would be well within Its jurisdiction to
issue appropriate directions, depending upon the circumstances of the case.
When certain power has been conferred upon the Central Government for
examining the cadre strength, it is coupled with a duty to comply with the F
requirements of the law and any infraction on the score cannot be whittled
down on the hypothesis that no vested right of any employee is being
jeopardised. When Rules and Regulations provide for certain things to be
done at a certain period, the same should normally be observed and if there
has been a failure, the Court should compel the performance of that duty.
                                                             [457-E-H; 458-A, Bl G

       1.2. It would not be appropriate for the Court to deny relief to the
appellants on the ground of apprehended administrative chaos ifthe appellants
are entitled to the same. While exercising the discretionary jurisdiction,
Courts can examine the question of administrative chaos or unsettling the
settled position, but in the absence of any materials on record, the Court is     H
    452                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.CR.

A   not justified in accepting the apprehension. On examining the records of the
    case, no iota of material, indicating the so-called administrative chaos, likely
    to occur if any direction is issued for re-consideration of the case of promotion
    on the basis of the alteration of the cadre strength is found. [457-8, C, D]

           1.3. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the Union
                                                                                        ..
B   Government and the State Governments are directed to reconsider the
    question of promotion of the State Cadre Officers to the Indian Police Se.-vice
    on the basis of the re-determined strength of the cadre, treating the same to
    be in the year 1989 and on such a re-consideration, if relief would be available
    to any of the appellants for promotion to the IPS on the basis of the quota
C   available to them in the cadre, the same may be given to them. This exercise
    may be done within a period of six months. [460-G-H]

          Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Supp. 3 SCC
    575, relied on.

0         R.R.S. Chauhan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] Supp. 3 SCC
    109 ; S.l. Kaul & Ors. v. Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Information
    and Broadcasting, New Delhi & Ors., [1989[ Supp. I. SCC 147; R.S. Mittal
    v. Union ofIndia, [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230; T.N Administrative Service Officers
    Assn. & Anr: v. Union of India & Ors., [2000[ 5 SCC 728 and Devendra
    Narayan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1996) II SCC 342,
E   distinguished.

          Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors., [1999] 8 SCC
    304, referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2560 of 1999.
F
         From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.95 of the Central Administrative
    Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 893 of 1992.

                                            WITH
G
          Civil Appeal Nos. 2561-65/99 and 2566/99 and W.P. (C) No. 366/98.

          Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, P.N. Mishra, Dr.
    Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advs., K.V. Viswanathan, Athul Sinha, K.V. Venkateswara,
    K.V. Vijay Kumar, T. Raja, T.C. Sh~a. Ms. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeswaran, S.N.
H   Terdol, A. Mariarputham, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Anurag Mathur, Sushi! Kumar
                   S. RAMANAfHAN v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK, J.]                       453

    Jain, A.P. Dhamija and Ms. Pratibha Jain for the appearing parties.                 A
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           PATTANAIK, J. In these appeals as well as the writ petition, filed under
    Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a common question of law arises for
    consideration. The appellants are State Police Service Officers, who have           B
    been promoted to the Indian Police Service. The sole grievance of theirs in
    these matters is that inaction on the part of the Competent Authority to have
    triennial review, whether entitles the appellants to have a mandamus from the
    Court to have a review, in accordance with law and the consequential directions
    for reconsideration of the appellants for promotion to the post of Indian
    Police Service from an anterior date. The tribunal in the impugned judgment,        C
    though came to the conclusion that there has not been a triennial review for
    re-determination of the cadre strength, in accordance with the statutory


-
    provisions, but refused to issue mandamus, on a finding that no prejudice
    thereby has been caused to the appellants, and as such the appellants are
    not entitled to the issuance of mandamus from the Court.                            D
          The Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments as
    well as the Union Public Service Commission, made the Regulation in exercise
    of powers under sub-rule (I) of Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment)
    Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'] and a set of
    Regulations called the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)             E
    Regulations, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Promotion Regulations'). The
    Central Government also in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section( I)
    of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 [hereinafter called 'the Act']
    in consultation with the State Governments, framed a set of Rules called the
    Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Cadre
    Rules]. Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules, defines the strength of the cadre to mean:       F
           "Rule 4. Strength of Cadres. : (I) The strength and composition of
           each of the cadres constituted under rule 3 shall be as determined by
           regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the
           State Governments in this behalf and until such regulations are made
           shall be as in force immediately before the commencement of these G
           rules.

           (2) The Central Government shall. at intervals of every three years. re-
           examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in
           consultation with the State Government or the State Governments
           concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit:             H
     454                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

 A               Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to affect
             the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and
             compositiop of any cadre at any other time:

                 Provided further tha; the State Government concerned may add
             for a period not exceeding one year and with the approval of the
B            Central Government for a further period not exceeding two years, to
             a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or
             responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts."

     Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, as aforesaid makes it obligatory on the part of the
C Central Government to re-determine the strength and composition of each
   cadre at intervals of every three years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid
   provisions, contained in sub-rule (2), the proviso to said sub-rule empowers
   the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre
   at any other time. The aforesaid Cadre Rules, more particularly, sub-rule (2)
   thereof was amended on 10th of March. 1995 and by such amendment, in               -
D place of the expression 'at the intervals of every three years', the expression
   'ordinarily at the interval of every five years' was substituted. We are however
   concerned in the case in hand with pre-amended provisions. Cnder the
   Promotion Regulation, when select lists are prepared, the substantive vacancies
   anticipated in course of the period of 12 months commencing from the date
E of preparation of the lists are taken into account. The Cadre strength determined
   under the Cadre Rules, plays an important role inasmuch as the number of
   members of the State Police Service, included in the list will not be more than
  twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of period
  of 12 months, as provided under Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulation.
  The procedure for preparation of the list has been succinctly indicated in the
F aforesaid Promotion Regulation. This being the statutory provisions, the
  question for consideration is whether infraction on the part of the appropriate
  authority, in the matter of discharge of its obligation in relation to the
  determination of cadre, entitles an employee to obtain a mandamus from the
  Court, requiring the appropriate authority to discharge their obligation in
G accordance with law and consequently to redetermine the case of these
  appellants in respect of those vacancies which were found to be available by
  the competent authority itself. It transpires from the records of these appeals
  that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench disposed of two
  applications O.A.No.1082/91 and O.A.No. 1125191, and came to the conclusion
  that the triennial review required under Rule 4(2) of the Cadre. Rules had been
H carried out in March. 1979 and the next review was due in March, 1982 but
               S. RAMANATHAN v. l:.O.l. [PATTANAIK. J.J                    455
in fact the Cadre Strength had been reviewed in the year 1984 and by such          A
review, seven more posts have been added to the promotion quota in the
State of Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the appropriate authority
to re-consider the case of promotion of the officers of the said Cadre on the
basis of the increased cadre strength for the inclusion of their names in the
select list for the year 1984. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, the Union of India had approached this Court, which       B
however was dismissed after hearing the parties by order dated 13.11.1997
and though, no reasons had been ascribed, but the said order appears to be
a decision on merits, affirming the conclusion of the Tribunal.

       It is contended by Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the        C
appellants and Shri P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ
petitioners that the next triennial review was due in the year 1987 but this
exercise was initiated by Notification in the year 1989 and finally, the cadre
strength was reviewed in the year 1991 with a finding that there has been an
increase in the cadre strength. In view of such increase in the cadre strength,
the chances of promotion of the appellants to the post of Indian Police            D
Service from an earlier point of time, stood accelerated and, therefore, they
approached the Tribunal for appropriate directions. The Tribunal, however,
following the judgment of this Court in the case of R.R.S. Chauhan and Ors.
v. Union of India and Ors., [I 995] Supp. 3 SCC I 09, and on an analysis of
the factual position, being of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused,      E
refused to issue any mandamus and hence these appeals. It may be stated
that not only the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras was
assailed in this Court by filing special leave petition, which stood dismissed,
as already stated, but also the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench, Cuttack Bench and Gauhati Bench took identical decisions, which not
being assailed, reached finality. The effect is that four different Benches of     F
the Central Administrative Tribunal have issued directions to the Central
Government as well as to the concerned State Governments to hold triennial
review and reconsider the case of promotion of the said Cadre of Police
Service Officers and such decisions have been implemented without any
murmur.
                                                                                   G
      Mr. Rao and Mr. Mishra, the learned seni..ir counsel, appearing for the
appellants contended with vehemence that when statutory rules and regulations
provide for something to be done in the matter of review of cadre strength
within a specified period, law enjoins on such authorities to enforce the
concerned provisions and to review the cadre strength and failure on their         H
    456                       SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   part to review the cadre strength, entitles the appellants to have a mandamus
    from the Court for such appropriate decisions and directions in the matter of
    consideration of the case of the appellants on the basis of the changed cadre
    strength. Mr. Rao also further submitted that the language used in Rule 4(2),
    leaves no room for doubt that it was incumbent on the Central Government
B   to have a cadre review every three years, which was in force till 1995 and the
    substitution of the said words by the expression will not give the authority
    with an unlimited power not to take up the question of triennial review and
    such a view cannot be accepted by any Court. According to Mr. Rao, the
    expression 'ordinarily' would also mean within a reasonable period and in the
    case in hand, in fact there has been no explanation at all, coming from the
C   Union of India as to why the triennial review could not be held in due time
    in the year 1987.

             Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,. the learned senior counsel, appearing for the



D
    respondents-direct recruits, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Mukul
     Rohtagi. appearing for the Union of India and Mr. A. Mariarputham, Mrs.
    Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag Mathur, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu,
    on the other hand contended that there has been no definite prayer before
    the Tribunal seeking a mandamus for having a triennial review in accordance
                                                                                        -
    with the relevant provisions of the Cadre Rules and that being the position,
    the appellants will not be permitted to raise the matter after so many years,
E   which would have the effect of unsettling the settled questions. It was also
    contended that the appellants having failed in their attempt to get the select
     list altered, have now come forward through a subterfuge and the discretionary
    jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked for that purpose. Mr. Rohtagi,
    the learned Additional Solicitor General, though candidly stated before us
    that the appropriate authority should have done the triennial review for
F   fixation of the cadre strength within the time stipulated in the cadre rules, but
    vehemently objected for any such direction being issued for re-consideration
    of the case of the appellants, more so when the appellants have not approached
    the Tribunal diligently. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General
    the tribunal has rightly considered the question of prejudice and has denied
G   the relief sought for. The learned Additional Solicitor General also urged that
    the situation which should have been made available in 1987 on the basis of
    the cadre strepgth, cannot be brought back by a direction for re-consideration
    and in that view of the matter, neither the equity demands such a direction
    nor it would be appropriate for this Court to unsettle the settled service
    position. But to our query, as to how the orders of different tribunals on
H   identical situations could be carried out without any demur, the learned
              S. RAMANATHAN v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK, J.]                    457
Additional Solicitor General was not in a position to give any reply. It also A
transpires from the available records that the Union of India, no-where has
even indicated as to how it would be unworkable if a direction is issued by
this Court for re-consideration of the case of promotion to the JPS Cadre on
the basis of the additional vacancies which have been found to be available.
It would, therefore be not appropriate for this Court to deny the relief to the B
appellants on the ground of apprehended administrative chaos, ifthe appellants
are otherwise entitled to the same. It is no doubt true that while exercising
the discretionary jurisdiction, Courts examine the question of administrative
chaos or unsettling the settled position, but in the absence of any materials
on record, the Court should not be justified in accepting the apprehension
of any administrative chaos or unsettling the settled position, on the mere oral C
submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General, without any materials
in support of the same. On examining the records of the case, we do not find
an iota of material, indicating the so-called administrative chaos, likely to
occur in the event any direction is issued for re-consideration of the case of
promotion on the basis of the alteration of the cadre strength and, therefore,
we have no hesitation in rejecting the said submission of the learned Additional D
Solicitor General.

       The question, therefore arises for consideration is as to what is the
effect of Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules as it stood prior to its amendment in
 the year 1995 and if there has been an infraction in the matter of compliance E
of the said rule, what direction could be given to the appropriate authority?
The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed by Central
Government in exercise of powers under sub- section( I) of Section 3 of the
All India Services Act, 195 L The language of sub-rule(2) of Rule 4, as it stood
prior to its amendment is rather peremptory in nature and thus .it requires that
the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and composition of F
each cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned and make
such alteration therein as it deems fit. It is no doubt true that an infraction
of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an employee
for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But it cannot be denied that
if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation is forth- G
coming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances under
which the exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may well
approach a Court and a Court in its turn would be well within its jurisdiction
to issue appropriate directions, depending upon the circumstances of the
case. When certain power has been conferred upon the Central Government
for examining the cadre strength, necessarily the same is coupled with a duty H
     458                       SUPREME COL'RT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A to comply with the requirements of the law and any infraction on that score
     cannot be whittled down on the hypothesis that no vested right of any
    employee is being jeopardised. The learned Additional Solicitor General is not
     in a position to refute the fact that in the event, the cadre strength, which
    has in fact increased in the year 1991 is taken into account, then in the maner
B   of determination on the question of promotion, some additional advantage
    could be available to the employees in the erstwhile State Cadre, who have
    been considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service. That apart when
    Rules and Regulations provide for certain things to be done at a certain
    period, the same should normally be observed and if there has been a failure,
    the Court should compel the performance of that duty. In the case of Syed
C   Khalid Rizvi and Ors. v. Union of India and Urs., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 575,
    a three Judge Bench of this Court had examined the provisions of the IPS
    (Regulations of Seniority) Rules, 1994 and other provisions of the Recruitment
    Rules, Cadre Rules and Appointment by Promotion Regulation and it was
    observed:

D               "The leeway and liberty given to the State Government under
            Regulation 8 of Promotion Regulations read with Rule 9 of the Cadre
            Rules is only to cope up with administrative exigencies but it became
            a breeding ground to distort the operation of the Rules which shoul4
            scrupulously be eschewed and avoided.''

E
    The Court examined in the aforesaid case the question whether the failure to
    prepare the select list would give rise to an inference that rules have been
    collapsed and the State Government's local arrangement shall be given
    le;;itimacy as regular appointments. After giving anxious consideration to the
    end resultants, the Court had found it hard to accept the same. The Court
F   observed that the State Government and the Central Government should
    strictly comply with the provisions in making Recruitment by promotion from
    the State Service to the All India Services and if laxity has to be given
    legitimacy and deemed relaxation is extended, it would not only upset the
    smooth working of the rules but also undo the prescribed ratio between
G   promotee officers and direct recruits. It is in that context, the Court ultimately
    issued certain directions to be complied with by the Central Government, after
    taking objections from the promotees who were included in the notional list
    for different years. The aforesaid decision, no doubt is in relation to the
    placement of an employee in the select list and has no direct application to
    the case in hand, but the observations made with regard to performance of
H   duties of a statutory authority should equally apply to the case in hand. The
               S. RAMANATHAN v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK, J.]                     459
 impugned judgment of the tribunal proceeds on the assumption that the A
 decision of this Court in R.R.S. Chouhan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
 [1995) Supp. 3 SCC 109, which was a decision in relation to an officer of the
 Indian Forest Service governs the field. In that case, the Court was examining
 the question whether an officer even if was continuously officiating on a
 senior post, can avail of the benefit of the said officiation in view of the fact B
 that in the subsequent select list, the names of those officers have not been
 included. The aforesaid decision is of no assistance to us in the present case
 where the question for consideration is, when the Competent authority fails
 to discharge its obligation, conferred under the statute, could the Court
 compel the authority for such performance and if so, what would be .the mode
 of relief to be given, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each C
 case. In the case of S.L. Kaul and Ors. v. Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry
 of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi and Ors., [1989) Supp. 1 SCC
 147, on which, Dr. Dhawan had placed reliance, the Court was considering the
 question of up-gradation of posts and the seniority and promotion to those
 posts on the basis of length of continuous service. The Court in fact had
 observed that the incumbents have not to suffer for the lapse on the part of D
 the Government in delay in amending the Schedule to the Rules. We fail to
 understand. as to how this decision will be of any assistance to us in arriving
 at an appropriate conclusion on the question involved. Dr. Dhawan, had
 strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in R.S. Mittal v. Union of
 India, ( 1995) Supp. 2 sec 230, whereunder this Court having come to the E
 conclusion that the Central Government's approach was wholly unjustified,
 yet refused to grant the relief to the applicant in the peculiar facts of the case.
 But the relief, which has been sought for in the present appeals, namely a
 direction to the Union Government to re-consider the question of promotion
to the Indian Police Service on the basis of their own fixation of cadre
strength, which they did in the year 1991, though it was supposed to have F
been done in the year 1987. The general principles, as indicated in the Mittal's
case, will have no application, particularly when the Union Government is
totally silent in the matter of indicating the effect of such a direction. The
decision of this Court in TN. Administrative Service Officers Assn. and Anr.
v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) 5 sec 728. was also brought to our notice. G
in support of the contention that mere delay in undertaking the review will
not ipso facto entitle an employee to get a writ of mandamus from the Court.
But in that case, Court was considering the infraction of Rule 4 of the IAS
Cadre Rules and undoubtedly, there has been delay in undertaking such
review and consequential delay in preparation of select list but that delay was
found to have been sufficiently explained by the Union Government and that, H
    460                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A    therefore, the Court said that the question of fixation of seniority of the
     promotees with retrospective effect cannot be granted. In the case in hand,
     in the absence of any explanation for not conducting the triennial review
    within the specified period of three years, the aforesaid decision will have no
    application. The decision of this Court in Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham
    Singh Kamal and Ors., (1999] 8 SCC 304, was also pressed into service in
B   support of the contention that the appellants had approached the tribunal
    beyond limitation, provided under Section J9 and, therefore are not entitled
    to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136, even if there has
    been an infraction of the statutory obligation, which lay on the authority to
    have the triennial review. We are not persuaded to accept this submission
C   inasmuch the appellants approached the tribunal, the moment the competent
    authority re-determined the cadre strength in the year 1991, and, therefore, it
    cannot be said that there has been !aches on the part of the appellants to
    approach the administrative tribunal. One other decision, which may be noticed
    at this stage is the case of Devendra Narayan Singh and Ors. v. State of
    Bihar and Ors., [ 1996: 11 SCC 342, to which one of us, Pattanaik, 1 was a
D   party. In that case, the appropriate authority had committed error in not
    preparing the select list for a particular year and pursuant to a direction of
    this Court the employee's name was included in the select list of a later year
    and ultimately this Court observed that the select list in question must be held
    to be of the relevant year, where-in on account of error committed by the
E   appropriate authority the name could not be included. This indicates that the
    Court has been insisting performance of duty upon the authority under the
    statute quite meticulously and on the admitted position that the process of
    determining the cadre strength was initiated in the year 1989 and it was
    finalised in the year 1991, there is no rhyme and reason why the respondents
    will not be directed to reconsider the question on the basis of the altered
F   strength of the cadre, as if it was so altered in the year 1989 when the process
    of determination of cadre strength was initiated. We, accordingly set aside the
    impugned orders of the tribunal and direct the Union Government as well as
    the State Government to reconsider the question of promotion of the State
    Cadre Officers to the Indian Police Service on the basis of the re-determined
    strength of the cadre, treating the same to be in the year 1989 and if on such
G   a re-consideration relief would be available to any of the appellants for
    promotion to the IPS on the basis of the quota available to them in the cadre,
    the same may be given to them. This exercise may be done within a period
    of six months from the date of receipt of this order. These appeals and the
    writ petition are disposed of accordingly.

H B.S.                                         Appeals and petition disposed of.