Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Government lacked power to carry forward unfilled vacancies before the amendment; the two‑year carry‑forward rule applies and the seniority list must be prepared accordingly.

Summary

The case concerned a long‑standing dispute between directly recruited Section Officers and promotee officers in the Central Secretariat Service over the allocation of vacancies. The 1962 Rules prescribed a 1/6 (later 1/5) quota for direct recruitment, with the remainder filled by promotion, and the 1984 amendment introduced a two‑year carry‑forward provision for unfilled vacancies. The Central Administrative Tribunal had held that before the amendment the Government could not carry forward vacancies for direct recruits, effectively converting them to promotee vacancies. The Supreme Court rejected this view, holding that the amendment’s two‑year carry‑forward rule applies and that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the Tribunal’s order set aside, and the seniority list was ordered to be redrawn in accordance with the correct legal position.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation of the Central Secretariat Service Rules (1962) and the 1984 amendment regarding the proportion of direct recruitment vacancies.
Whether the Government had the power to carry forward unfilled vacancies for direct recruits prior to the 1984 amendment.
The applicability of the two‑year carry‑forward provision to vacancies existing before the amendment.
The authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal to correct its own error by review.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309

Subjects

Service lawCentral Secretariat ServiceDirect recruitmentPromotionVacancy carry forwardSeniority listTribunal reviewArticle 309

Judgment

A. SURJIT SINGH AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 9, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

Service Law :

-
Central Secretariat Se1vice Rules, 1962: r. 16 and r. 12 (as amended
C by Central Secretariat Se1vice (Second Amendment) Rules, 1984)--<:entral
Secretaliat Service-Section Officers-Appointment by direct recntitment and
promotion-One-sixth/one-fifth vacancies to be filled by direct recntit-
ment-Provisions indicate that the number of vacancies to be filled by sub-
stantive appointment of persons included in select list for Section Officer's
grade in a recmitment year shall be proportionate to vacancies repmted by
D that cadre to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Refonns to be
filled by direct recntitment for the yeal'-Where sufficient number of direct
recntit candidates for unfilled vacancies are not available for two recmitment
years plior to the recmitment year, all unfilled vacancies will be thrown open
to respective quotas, namely, by promotions and vice versa, as the case may
E be-The view of the Tlibzmal that preceding the date of amendment the
Govemment was devoid of power to cany fo1ward all unfilled vacancies to
the direct recmits and that all these vacancies are meant to be thrown open
to the promotees, is clearly a misrepresentation of the ntles-Senimity list
prepared by the Central Govemment needs to be redone accordingly.

H.N. Hardasani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 SCR 266,
F
referred to.

Central Administrative T1ibunaf-Review-Held, when a patent e1Tor is
brought to notice of T1ibunal, it is duty bound to col7"ect with grace its mistake
by way of review of its orders/decisions.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3641-42
of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 629/94 and Order dated
H 23.5.96 in RA. No. 273 of 1995.
382
SURJITSINGHv. u.o.r. 383

P.P. Rao, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, A
Aruna & Co. for the Appellants.

V.C. Mahajan, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Anil Katiyar, D.C. Vohra
and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : B

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

The never-ending dispute between the direct recruits and the C
promotees has again surfaced in these appeals. The year 1962 onwards, the
Central Secretariat Service Rules (for short, the 'Rules') framed under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India provided a ratio of 1/6th
and 5/6th between the direct recruits and the promotees. On July 1, 1982,
the ratio was changed to l/5th and 4/5th between the direct recruits and D
the promotees respectively. In the year 1983, a writ petition under Article
32 was filed by the promotee officers titled H.N. Hardasani & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors .. This Court had directed that the unfilled vacancies meant
for the direct recruits might be carried forward for over two years and
subsequently unfilled vacancies meant for direct recruits might be thrown
open for being filled up by the promotees. A statutory shape was given to E
the said direction by amending the Rules. In these cases, we are concerned
with the Section Officers in the Central Secretariat. When fresh seniority
list was being prepared, another writ petition came to be filed titled Amrit
Lal & Ors. v. Union of India f!, Ors.. This Court directed therein prepara-
tion of the seniority list in the light of the direction giv.:n by this Court F
which stood transformed into Amended Rules. Consequently, a seniority
list had been prepared giving due placement to the direct recruits and the
promotees in accordance with the rota and quota as operating under the
Rules. Again, a third round of litigation had been started by filing of an
Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal G
in the impugned order made in O.A. No. 629 of 1994, on March 22, 1995
and the review order following therefrom on May 23, 1996, has put the
clock back, stating that prior to the amendment of the Rules putting two
years' limitation on carry forward of the vacancies meant for the direct
recruits would mean that earlier to that date the Government of India had
no power to carry forward and thereafter, when the Rules had come into H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A force, the Government had power to carry forward the vacancies limited
to two years. Therefore, all the promotions made earlier to the amendment
of the Rules must be held to have been thrown open to the promotees and
subsequently, as and when the vacancies would not be filled up within two
recruitment years, after the amendment has been brought into force after
B expiry of two recruitment years, the unfilled vacancies reserved for direct
recruits would also be thrown open to the promotees; the seniority list is
required to be prepared afresh in that manner. Thus, these appeals by
special leave.

H is seen that Rule 13(1) of the Rules dealing with recruitment of
C Section Officers of the Central Secretariat, reads as under :
"One-sixth of the substantive vacancies in the Section Officers'
Grade in any cadre shall be filled by direct recruitment on the
results of the competitive examinations held by the Commission
for this purpose from time to time. The remaining vacancies shall
D be filled by the substantive appointment of persons included in the
Select List for the Section Officers' Grade in that cadre. Such
appointments shall be made in the order of seniority in the Select
List except when for reasons to be recorded in writing, a person
is not considered fit for such appointment in his turn."
E A reading of this rule would clearly indicate that one-sixth/one- fifth,
as per subsequently amended Rules of the substantive vacancies (posts) in
the Section Officers' grade in any cadre shall be filled by direct recruitment
on the results of the competitive examinations held by the Union Public
Service Commission for this purpose from time to time. In other words,
F the rule is imperative and unequivocal that one-sixth/one-fifth vacancies
meant for direct recruitment shall be filled only by direct recruitment after
due recruitment is made by the UPSC and appointments made by Govern-
ment from time to time. The unfilled spilled over vacancies shall be filled
up with the promotees from the select list. It must be for two years from
G the last recruitment year. Consequent upon the directions issued by this
Court, the rule came to be amended and the two years' limitation was
introduced which reads thus :

"G.S.R. 21 In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the
H following rules further to amend the Central Secretariat Rules,
SURJITSINGHv. U.O.I. 385

1962, namely : A
1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Secretariat Ser-
vice (Second Amendment) Rules, 1984.

(2) They shall come into force on 1st July, 1985.
B
2. In the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter
referred to as the said rules) in rule 12, in sub-rule (2) for the third
proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely :-

"Provided· further that if any person appointed to the Section
Officers Grade is considered for promotion to grade I under this C
sub-rule, all persons senior to him in the Section Officers' Grade,
belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, who
have rendered not less than four years' approved service in that
Grade, shall also be considered for promotion".
D
3. In rule 1 of the said rules,

(1) after sub-rule (1), the following proviso shall be inserted
namely:-

Provided that the number of the vacancies to be filled by the E
substantive appointment of persons included in Select List for the
Section Officers' Grade is a recruitment year in a cadre, shall be
proportionate to vacancies reported by that cadre to the Depart-
ment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to be filled by
direct recruitment for that year.
F
Provided further that if sufficient number of candidates are not
available for filling up the vacancies in a cadre in any year, either
by direct recruitment or by appointment of persons included in
the select list for Section Officers' Grade, the unfilled vacancies
shall also be carried forward for not more than two recruitment G
years, beyond the year to which the recruitment relates, whereafter
the vacancies, if any, still remaining unfilled, belonging to one
mode of recruitment, shall be transferred as additional vacancies
for the other mode of recruitment";

(ii) in sub-rule (2), for the first proviso, the following shall be H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
.A substituted, namely :-

"Provided that if any person appointed to the Assistants' Grade is
considered for promotion to the Section Officers' Grade in any
cadre under this rule, all persons senior to him in the Assistants'
Grade in that cadre and belonging to the Scheduled Castes."
B
A reading thereof would indicate that the number of the vacancies
to be filled by the substantive appointment of persons included in Select
List for the Section Officers' Grade in a recruitment year in a cadre, shall
be proportionate to vacancies reported by that cadre to the Department
C of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to be filled by direct recruitment
for the year. Provided further that if sufficient number of candidates are
not available for filling up the vacancies in a cadre, in any recruitment year,
either by direct recruitment or by appointment of persons included in the
select list for Section Officers' grade, i.e. by promotion the unfilled vacan-
D cies shall also be carried forward for not more than two recruitment years,
beyond the year to which the recruitment relates, whereafter the vacan-
cies, if any, still remaining unfilled, belonging to one mode of recruit-
ment, shall be transferred as additional vacancies for the other mode of
recruitment. In other words, where sufficient number of direct recruit
candidates for the unfilled vacancies are not available for two recruit-
E ment years prior to the recruitment year, all unfilled vacancies will be
thrown open to the respective quotas, namely, by promotions and vice
versa, as the case may be. In that view of the matter, this Court held in
Amrit Lal's case as under :

F "In spite of the decisions of this Court referred to above, some of
the promotee officers in this cadre went before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal raising a fresh dispute on what may be said
to be a covered field. The Tribunal had the handicap of a binding
judgment in the field; yet on the basis of materials placed before
it, it came to conclusions partly different from what had been
G reached by this Court and; rendered a judgment which is impugned
before us in this group of cases. We have heard parties at consid-
erable length in the month of January this year and thereafter when
we were satisfied that the representation made to chis Court on
the earlier occasion that there existing a seniority list was perhaps
H not correct, we called upon the Union of India to draw up such a
,.,'

SURJIT SINGHv. U.O.l. 387

list and for that purpose we adjourned the proceedings for a A
considerable period of time, it is not disputed that with the assis-
tance of both the side such a list has now been drawn up.

We have again heard counsel appearing on the two sides and
even allowed oral argumei;:tts to be addressed by an intervener in
person. This Court has repeatedly noticed the fact that public B
officers are more in Court than in their offices. With a view to
doing complete justice to the matter and being assured by counsel
on either side and the representatives who have filled our Court
.. hall that if a seal be given to this litigation, our expectation that
Government business shall now be carried on and not litigation C
hereafter, we have agreed to make this further order providing
certain guid::lines for updating/modifying the list which was drawn
up as referred to above.

We are of the opinion that with a view to doing complete justice
to the situation, the December 1984 Rules should be made opera- D
tive from 1.7.1984 instead of 1.7.1985. These Rules have now a
limited provision of carry forward of vacancies to be filled up by
direct recruits and that is a two year period. The entitlement to
substantive recruitment to the cadre is on an eight year period of
qualifying service. Entitlement as qualified officers in the field is E
one matter and recruitment into the cadre on substantive basis is
another. It may be noted that 20% is reserved for the direct recruits
and the remainder is available to the promotees.

We do not consider it appropriate to dispose of the matter now
and leave the litigant again to come in some form. Therefore, we F
adjourn these proceedings by two months and require the Union
Government to update/modify the list scrupulously following every
provision of the relevant rules and the regulations and place the
list for consideration of the Court on the adjourned date. A copy
of the list as prepared may be served on the counsel for either side G
a week in advance so that they would be in a position to make
their representations on that date."

In the light of these directions, it is obvious that the Government of
India had prepared the seniority list. The contention of. the promotees
which was found acceptable to the Tribunal that preceding the date of H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A amendment the Government was devoid of power to carry forward all
unfilled vacancies to the direct recruits and that all these vacancies are
meant to be thrown open to the promotees, is clearly a misinterpretation
of the rules and on that basis the directions came to be issued by the
Tribunal. This Court had suggested on earlier occasion that vacancies
meant for the direct recruits may be carried forward for two years after
B the recruitment year and thereafter the unfilled vacancies would be thrown
open to the respective cadres. Under these circumstances, the view of the
Tribunal is clearly illegal; unfortunately, the Tribunal has wrongly stated
that if they commit mistake, it is for this Court to correct the same. That
view of the Tribunal is not conducive to the proper functioning of judicial
C service. When a patent error is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the
Tribunal is duty bound to correct, with grace, its mistake of law by way of
review of its order/directions.
c
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the
Tribunal is set aside. As a result, the seniority list prepared by the Central
D Government needs to be redone as per the law now declared. No. costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed.