Holding

A formal confirmation order cannot be unreasonably delayed, and the appellants are entitled to the year of allotment as if they had been selected in the 1983 IAS promotion list.

Summary

The appellants, direct recruits to the Karnataka Administrative Service, completed their probation on 14 July 1976 but were not formally confirmed until 1 January 1986, a delay of nearly ten years. Because of this undue delay, they were excluded from the 1983 select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and were only promoted later under the 1987 list. They filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the same year of allotment as their juniors, which was dismissed, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that while confirmation requires a formal order, such an order cannot be unreasonably delayed, especially when confirmation is a pre‑condition for better service conditions. It found no cogent reason for the delay and concluded that the appellants were eligible for consideration in the 1983 select list, directing the Union of India to assign them the year of allotment corresponding to that list. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in issuing a formal confirmation order after satisfactory completion of probation is unreasonable and violative of service law.
Whether the appellants are entitled to the year of allotment for IAS promotion based on the 1983 select list despite the delayed confirmation.

Legislation cited

Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955

Subjects

service lawpromotionIASconfirmation delayseniorityyear of allotmentadministrative lawKarnataka Administrative Service

Judgment

SH. ASHOK V. DAVID A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 10, 1996

[G.B. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-
tions, 1955. C
Seniority-State Administrative Service Officers-Satisfactorily com-
pleted probation on 14.7.1976-But confinned on J.l.1986 against vacancies
of 1962-0fficers not considered for promotion to IAS in 1983--But certain
officers confinned against vacancies of years subsequent to 1962 con-
sidered-However, officers, subsequently promoted to IAS pursuant to select D
list of 1987 and given year of allotment accordingly-Held : there was ab-

... solucely no cogent reason for the undue delay in confinnaJion-ln the cir-
cumstances of the case, ,the said officers entitled to year of allotment in the
IAS as they were selected pursuant to select list prepared in 1983 and not in
~ E
Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957: Rules 5 and 9.

Confim1ation-Undue delay in issuance ofJonna! order of-After satis-
factory completion of probation-Held : improper.
F
The appellants were direct recruits to the State Administrative Ser-
vice and satisfactorily completed the period of probation on 14.7.1976 but
were confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 against vacancies which had occurred in the
year 1962. Consequently, the appellants were not considered for promotion
to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as per the select list prepared
in 1983 in accordance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appoint- G
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Certain Offiers confirmed against
vacancies occurring in years snbsequent to 1962 were considered for
promotion. However, the appellants were subsequently promoted to the
1AS pursuant to a select list prepared in 1987 and given year of allotment
accordingly. H
Tl3
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The appellants filed a petition in the Central Administrative
Tribunal for being given the same year of allotment as was given to their
,juniors, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred
the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that under Rules 5 and
B 9 of Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957, the appellants,
after satisfactory completion of the period of probation, became due for
confirmation; and that they could not be made to suffer due to undue delay
in their confirmation.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1.1. From a combined reading of Rules 5 and 9 of Mysore
Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957 it is clear that a probationer
cannot be treated to be a confirmed employee merely on satisfactory comple-
tion of probation till an order of confirmation W'dS passed. However, there is
D no doubt that formal confirmation order cannot be unreasonably delayed, as
the delay causes injury in those cases where confirmation is a pre- condition
for getting better service condition, as was in tbe instant case. [726-B-D)

1.2. The appellants had satisfactorily completed the period of proba-
tion on 14.7.1976. Despite this formal confirmation of the appellants was
E ordered from l.l.1986, against vacancies which had occurred in 1962.
There was absolutely no cogent reason for this undue delay in their
confirmation. The late confirmation of the appellants can, therefore, be
taken as illustration of that "glorious uncertainty" relating to confirmation
which is known in service career and is amply borne out by confirmation
of a judicial officer as a District Judge after he had retired as a Supreme
F
Court Judge. [726-D-H]

2. There is no doubt that the appellants had become eligible for
consideration as per the select list prepared in 1983. The respondents are
directed to give that year of allotment to the appellants which is due to
G them by treating that their selection for promotion to IAS had taken place,
not pursuant to the select list prepared in 1987, but in 1983. [727-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ci,il Appeal No. 8391 of
1996 Etc.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.93 of the Central Ad-
AV. DAVID v. U.0.l. [HANSARIA,J.) 725

ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in A. No. 329 of 1993. A
C.S. Vaidyanathan and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, A.K. Ganguli, Raju
Ramachandran, S.R. Bhat, N.R. Nath, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj for the Appel-
lants.

M.L. Bhat, S. Wasim Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, S.K. B
Kulkarni, K.R. Nagaraja, P. Mahale for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HANSARIA, J. Leave granted.

2. The appellants, who were direct recruits to the Karnataka Ad-
c
ministrative Service had become due for consideration for pron1otion to
the Indian Administrative Service (!AS) in the year 1982 in accordance
with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955. They were, however, not so considered because they did
not come \vithin the zone of consideration, as in the seniority list their D
position was low, and as, to come \Vithin zone of consideraLion the number
' of persons to be considered can be only twice, they were left out. It is not
in dispute that their seniori!Y position was changed to their advantage
subsequently. It is also not i_n dispute that had their position in the seniority
list been correctly"·reflected earlier, they would have been within the zone E
of consideration. When the Selection committee set in December, 1983.

3. The appellants' case is that they having been denied consideration
in December, 1983 because of their wrong placement in the seniority list,
their promotion to the !AS got delayed, with the consequential result that
proper year of allotment was not assigned to them. They, therefore, ap- F
proached the Central Administrative Tribunal with prayer to direct the
Union of India to give them the year of allotment as 1979 (instead of 1982),
which had been given to the persons who were really junior to the appel-
lants, but had been shown senior earlier, which position came to be altered
subsequently. This has bee'n' denied. Hence these appeals. G
4. The main contention of Shri Bhat, appearing for the Union of
India, was that despite restoration of seniority of the appellants they could
not have been within he zone of consideration when the selection commit-
tee was set in December, 1983, inasmuch as the appellants came to be
confirmed with effect from 1.1.1986; and it is a confirmed hand who H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A becomes eligible for consideration. Though there is no dispute that formal
confirmation qua the appellants was effective from 1.1.1986, the case of the
appellants as advanced by Shri Ganguli and Shri Vaidyanathan for them,
was that under the provisions of Mysore Government Servants (Probation)
Rules, 1957, a probationer, after satisfactory completion of the period of
B probation, becomes due for confirmation; and if for unjustifiable reasons
formal order of confirmation is delayed, the incumbents cannot be made
to suffer. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka,
however, contended that a probationer cannot be treated to be a confirmed
employee merely on satisfactory completion of probation till an order of
confirmation is passed. This follows, according to learned counsel, from a
C combined reading of Rules 5 and 9 of the aforesaid Probation Rules.
Despite there being force in these contentions of the learned counsel, we
entertain no doubt that formal confirmation order cannot be unreasonably
delayed, as the delay causes injury in those cases where confirmation is a
pre-condition for getting better service condition, as \Va.s in this case.
D 0
5. The facts relating to the two appellants qua their confirmation is
that an order was passed on 14th November, 1977 stating that the Govern-
ment of Karnataka was pleased to declare that the officers had satisfactori-
ly completed the period of probation on 14.7.1976. Despite this formal
confirmation was ordered from 1.1.19,86. We do not find any cogent reason
E for this undue delay inasmuch from the Revised Gradation List of Kar-
nataka Administrative Service Group 'A' (Junior Scale) Officers as on
1.1.1990, a copy of which is at pages 144 to 188 of the paper book in appeal
arising out SLP (C) No. 12129 of 1994, it appears from page 167 that the
appellants were confirmed against the vacancies which had occurred on
F 25.6.1962 and 4.7.1962. There was thus absolutely no cogent reason to
confifm them from 1.1.1986 inasmuch as they had satisfactorily completed
their probationary period as early as 14.7.1976. It is also worth pointing out
that the respondents, whose names found place within the zone of con-
sideration when the selection committee was made in December, 1983, had
G come to be confirmed against vacancies which occurred on 5.2.1963 and
31.7.1976. The late confirmation of the appellants can, therefore, be taken
as illustration of that "glorious uncertainty" relating to confirmation which
is known in service career and is amply borne out by confirmation of a
judicial officer as a District Judge after he had retired as a Supreme Court
H judge.
A.V. DAVID V. u.o.r. [HANSARIA,J.] "/27

6. In the aforesaid premises, we have no doubt that the appellants A
had become eligible for consideration when the selection committee set in
December, 1983 and we, therefore, direct the Union of India to give that
year of allotment to the appellants which is due to them by treating that
their selection for promotion to !AS had taken place, not pursuant to the
select list prepared in 1987, but in 1983. The Union of India would pass
necessary order in this regard within a period of two months from today. B

7. The appeals are allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstan-
ces of the case, we make no order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeals allowed.