1971 (7) TMI 158 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rules 28B and 32 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954.
2. Validity of the Circular dated August 27, 1966.
3. Validity of the Orders dated January 4, 1967, January 22, 1970, and February 21, 1970.
4. Allegations of mala fides against the State.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rules 28B and 32:
The primary contention against Rules 28B and 32 was that they lacked criteria for assessing the merit of officers and conferred arbitrary powers on the Promotion Committees. The appellant argued that the deletion of sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 and sub-rules (2) to (6) of Rule 28 removed the guidelines for assessing merit, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court disagreed, stating that the rules did not offend Articles 14 or 16. It emphasized that the selection or promotion was to be considered by Committees consisting of responsible and senior officers of the State. The court noted that merit is a sum total of various qualities and attributes, such as academic qualifications, character, integrity, and the manner of discharging duties. The court concluded that Rules 28B and 32 provided sufficient guidelines for assessing merit and were not arbitrary or discriminatory.

2. Validity of the Circular dated August 27, 1966:
The appellant contended that the Circular issued by the Chief Secretary was unauthorized and imposed rigid guidelines that fettered the discretion of the Promotion Committees, thus contravening the statutory rules. The court agreed, stating that the Circular's marking system and the instructions therein were arbitrary and opposed to the selection based strictly on merit as provided under Rules 28B and 32. The Circular's rigid marking system and restrictions on the Committee's discretion were found to be inconsistent with the rules, making the Circular invalid. The court struck down the Circular dated August 27, 1966, as illegal and invalid.

3. Validity of the Orders dated January 4, 1967, January 22, 1970, and February 21, 1970:
The appellant challenged the promotions made under the Orders dated January 4, 1967, January 22, 1970, and February 21, 1970, on the grounds that they were based on the invalid Circular and illegal rules. The court held that the promotions and confirmations made under these orders should not be disturbed except for the promotions of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 1970. The court directed the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Government to review and reconsider the promotions of these respondents and the appellant, excluding the invalid Circular from consideration. The court emphasized that the appellant's eligibility for promotion should be assessed based on the rules as they stood when the Promotion Committee met in September 1966.

4. Allegations of mala fides against the State:
The appellant alleged that the amendments to the Service Rules and the delay in making promotions were intended to favor the son-in-law of the Chief Minister and other officers related to persons in the good books of the Chief Minister. The court rejected these allegations, agreeing with the Division Bench's reasoning that there was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the State. The court found that the State's actions were justified and not influenced by favoritism or nepotism.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of Rules 28B and 32 but struck down the Circular dated August 27, 1966, as illegal and invalid. It directed the reconsideration of the promotions of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 1970, excluding the invalid Circular from consideration. The court dismissed the allegations of mala fides and denied the larger reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners, except for the declaration that the Circular was invalid. The appeal was allowed in part, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.