Holding

A select list must be prepared separately for each year, and clubbing vacancies of several years is illegal; the High Court must decide the validity of a challenged list rather than remit the matter.

Summary

The appellant, a State Forest Service officer, was placed at No. 26 in a 1991 select list for induction into the Indian Forest Service (IFS) but was not appointed. He challenged the list, and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court sent the matter back to the Selection Committee instead of deciding its validity. The State later issued a fresh list in 1995 that clubbed vacancies from 1991‑1995, thereby excluding the appellant and including persons not eligible for 1991. The Supreme Court held that a select list must be prepared separately for each year and only candidates eligible in that year may be considered; clubbing vacancies of several years violates Regulation 5 of the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1965. The Court also ruled that the High Court abdicated its duty by remitting the case. Consequently, the 1995 list was quashed and the State was directed to prepare fresh yearly lists.

Issues considered

Whether a select list that clubs vacancies of multiple years is valid under Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965.
Whether the High Court can remit a challenge to the Selection Committee instead of adjudicating the validity of the select list.
Whether a select list must be prepared separately for each year irrespective of when it is actually drawn up.

Subjects

Service lawSelect listIndian Forest ServiceRecruitment RulesClubbing of vacanciesJudicial reviewHigh Court jurisdictionRegulation 5Appointment

Judgment

VIJA Y SINGH CHARAK A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 26, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Service Law: Selection-Preparation of select list-Requirement of-
Held: Separate select list should be prepared for a particular year-
Candidates eligible in that particular year alone to be considered for selection C
in the select list-There cannot be clubbing of vacancies of several years-
Clubbing is illegal-Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965-
Regulation 5.
Practice and Procedure: Writ Petition-Issue with regard to the validity
of select list-High Court sending the matter back to Selection Committee
without deciding the issue-Held: High Court abdicated its functions-It D
was unjustified and unwarranted
The select list was prepared for induction of Officers into Indian Forest
Service. There were 35 vacancies and appellant's name was at no. 26. He was
not selected. Select list was challenged. Division Bench sent back the select
list for consideration to the Selection Committee. State Government prepared E
a fresh select list dated 12.9.1995. Appellant's name was not there. Select
list of 1995 had clubbed together vacancies for period 1991-1995. Single
Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition. Appeal was also dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: 1. When a Select List is challenged the High Court can either
quash the Select List if it finds it invalid, or it can uphold the validity of the
List, but instead of taking recourse to either of these two courses of action,
the Division Bench devised a third method of disposing of the case by sending
back the select list to the Selection Committee. The High Court practically G
abdicated its functions. It was the duty of High Court to decide the controversy
as to whether the select list of 1991 was valid or not, and it was wholly
unjustified and improper on its part to refuse to perform its function.
!Paras 4 and 5) (189-G; 190-A)

187 H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 2.1 A Select List can only be prepared for a particular year, and only
those who are eligible in that particular year alone can be considered for
)..
selection in the Select List. Even if the Select List is not prepared in that
very year, it will relate back to that particular year. Therefore, clubbing is
illegal. [Paras 12 and 14) 1191-G-H)

B 2.2. In the instant case, a Select List had to be prepared for the year
1991. Hence, only those officers who were eligible for induction into the IFS
in the year 1991 could have been considered in the Select List for the year
1991 (even if it is prepared subsequent to 1991). The Select List dated
12.9.1995 has clubbed together the vacancies for the period 1991-1995 which

c was in violation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 1965. In the Select List of 12.9.1995 many persons who were not
eligible for selection for the year 1991 have been included, while the appellant
has been excluded. The clubbing done was clearly illegal and also any
selection made in pursuance thereof. The impugned Select List dated
12.9.1995 is quashed. The State Government is directed to prepare a fresh
D Select List for each year separately considering only those persons/officers
who were eligible for selection in that particular year.
[Paras 6, 13, 14 and 15) (190-C; 191-G-H; 192-B)

Union of India and Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hira/al Shah, [1996) 6 SCC ......
721, relied on. +
E
H.R. Kasturi Rangan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 1
SCALE SP 11 and Nepal Singh Tanwar, etc. v. Union ofIndia and Ors., (1998)
1 SCALE (SP) 7, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6660 of2000.
F
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.5.1999 of the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. (SW) No. 222/1999. I--

Rajeev Sharma, Diwakar Sinha and Nihar Ranjan Mohapatra for the
Appellant.
G
Shakeel Ahmed & Arna Das, Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehndi Imam &
Tabreez Ahmad, Indra Sawhney and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' '· ,._
H MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the
VIJA Y SINGH CHARAK v. U.0.1. [KA TJU, J.) 189
impugned judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 26.5 .1999 in A
LPA (SW) No. 222/99.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that a Select List dated 28.3.1991 was
prepared for induction of State Forest Service officials of Jammu & Kashmir B
into the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IFS'). The appellant's
name figured in the Select List at serial Number 26. The total number of
vacancies were 35, and hence ordinarily appellant should have been selected
--' and appointed. However, the Select list was challenged in a batch of writ
petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court C
dated 12.3.1993. The operative portion of that order states:

"This order will dispose of writ petitions Nos. 400/90, 80, 249, 618, 933,
619, 1395of 1991,264, 208, 287 and 266 of 1992, because they raise a
common question of law and fact. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State has placed on record a copy of the communication dated 11.3.1993 D
wherein it has been stated:
In case the petitioners withdraw the writ petitions, Government
shall refer the proposed select list of IFS of 1991 back to the
Selection Committee where the points raised by the petitioners
and respondents will be considered under rules by the said E
Selection Committee. The final list appoved by the Selection
Committee shall be final and binding on the parties.
In view of the above assurance, learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that they do not want to press the writ petitions and the
same be dismissed as withdrawn.
F
We or!ler accordingly".

4. We were surprised to read the aforesaid order dated 12.3.1993. when
a Select List is challenged the High Court can either quash the Select List in
question if it finds it invalid, or it can uphold the validity of the List, but
instead of taking recourse to either of these two courses of action, the G
Division Bench devised a third method of disposing of the case which, in our
opinion, was wholly unjustified and unwarranted.

5. The Division Bench by its order dated 12.3.1993 sent back the Select
List to the Selection Committee for considering the points raised by the writ
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A petitioners. In the way, the High Cou\'t practically abdicated its function. It
was the duty of the High Court to decide the controversy as to whether the
Select List dated 28.3.1991 was valid or not, and it was wholly unjustified and
improper on its part to refuse to perform its function and instead send the
matter back to the Selection Committee.

B 6. However, what has happened. Subsequent to the High Court's order
dated 12.3 .1993 a fresh exercise was undertaken by the State Government and
the State Government prepared a fresh Select List dated 12.9.1995. The
appellant's name was not in that Select List. It appears that the Select List
dated 12.9.1995 has clubbed together the vacancies for the period 1991-1995
C which, in our opinion, was in violation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest
Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation').
In the Select List of 12.9.1995, many persons who were not eligible for
selection for the year 1991 have been included, while the appellant has been
excluded.

D 7. Thus, the persons at serial numbers 32 to 35 in the Select List of 1995
were not even eligible for selection in 1991. In the notification dated 12.9 .1995,
a copy of which has bt::en annexed as annexure P-4 to this appeal shows that
the persons at serial numbers 27 to 28 were not even eligible in 1991. However, ,_
by the impugned judgment dated 24.9.1998, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the writ Petition filed by the appellant herein. Thereafter,
E the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court which was also dismissed by the impugned dated 26.5.1999.
Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the
F judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hirata!
Shah, [ 1996] 6 SCC 721. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, it is stated:

"It must, therefore, be held that in view of the provisions contained
in Regulation 5, unless there is a good reason for not doing so, the
Selection Committee is required to meet every year for the purpose of
G making the selection from amongst the state Civil Service officers who
fulfil the conditions regarding eligibility on the first day of January of
the year in which the Committee meets and fall within the zone of
consideration as prescribed in clause (2) of Regulation 5. The failure
on the part of the Selection Committee to meet during a particular
year would not dispense with the requirement of preparing the Select
H List for that year. If for any reason the selection Committee is not able
VIJAY SINGHCHARAK v. U.O.l. [KATJU. J.] 191

to meet during a particular year, the Committee when it meets next, A
should, while making the selection, Prepare a separate list for each
year keeping in view the number of vacancies in that year after
considering the state Civil Service officers who were eligible and fell
within the zone of consideration for selection in that year.

(emphasis supplied) B
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied
-" upon a judgment of this court in H.R. Kasturi Rangan & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., (1998) I SCALE SP 11, which was followed by the judgment
in Nepal Singh Tanwar, etc. v. Union of India & Ors etc., (1998) I SCALE
SP7. c
IO. We have carefully considered the aforesaid decisions and we are of
the opinion that the decisions in the case o H.R. Kasturi Rangan and Nepal
Singh Tanwar (supra), only lay down that it is not an absoulutely mandatory
i• requirement of the Regulation that a Select List must be prepared every year. D
List was not prepared every year, that by itself would not invalidate the Select
List for that year.

11. However, the dicisions in S.H. Kasturi Rangan and Nepal Singh
Tanwat (supra) do not, in our opinion, deal with the other principle laid down
in the decision in Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (supra), E
wherein it has been stated that the Selection Committee should prepare a
separate Select List for each year. In our opinion, this means that there cannot
be clubbing of vacancies of several years and there cannot be a common
Select list for these years.

12. A Select List can only be prepared for a particular year, and only F
those who are eligible in that particular year alone can be considered for
selection in the Select List. Even if the Select List is not prepared in that very
year, it will relate back to that particular year.

13. In the present case, a Select List had to be prepared for the year
1991.Hence, only those officers who were eligible for induction into the IFS G
in the year 1991 could have been considered in the Select List for the year
1991 (even if it is prepared subsequent to 1991 ).

14. It is obvious, therefore, that clubbing is illegal. Since clubbing has
been done for vacancies arising between 1991-95 in the IFS, this was clearly H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A illegal in view of the decision in Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah
(supra).

15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments
of the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench of the High Court are set
aside. Resultantly, the impugned Select List dated 12.9.1995 is quashed. The
B State Government is directed to prepare a fresh Select list for each year
separately considering only those persons/officers who were eligible for
selection in that particular year. This exercise must be completed as
expeditiously as possible. Any selection made in pursuance of the Select List
dated 12.9.1995 stands quashed. Fresh selections and appointments will be
C made as directed above. No costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

{