1972 (2) TMI 98 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees under the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
2. Competence of the State Government to make retrospective declarations of posts as equivalent to senior posts.
3. Validity of the Government of India's memorandum dated 20 September, 1967.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Dispute Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:
The core issue in these appeals is the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) under the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The direct recruits were appointed in 1949 and 1950, while the promotees were initially part of the Bihar State Civil Service and were promoted to the IAS in 1955 and 1956. The Government of India initially allotted the promotees the year 1948, placing them below the junior-most direct recruits of the 1948 batch. This decision was contested by the direct recruits, leading to a series of representations and decisions, culminating in the Government of India's memorandum dated 20 September, 1967, which revised the seniority of the promotees.

2. Competence of the State Government to Make Retrospective Declarations:
The promotees challenged the Government of India's memorandum on the grounds that the State of Bihar had the authority to make retrospective declarations of posts as equivalent to senior posts. The High Court upheld this view, quashing the memorandum and reinstating the promotees' original year of allotment as 1948. The Supreme Court, while agreeing that the State Government could make retrospective declarations, emphasized that such declarations must be approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

3. Validity of the Government of India's Memorandum Dated 20 September, 1967:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Government of India's memorandum, which changed the year of allotment for the promotees from 1948 to 1950 and 1952. The Court found that the memorandum was based on the incorrect assumption that the State Government could not make retrospective declarations. The Court held that the State Government's retrospective declaration was valid but required approval from the Central Government in consultation with the UPSC. Consequently, the memorandum dated 20 September, 1967, was quashed, but the High Court's order that the promotees should continue to hold their 1958 ranks was also set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the State Government could make retrospective declarations of posts as equivalent to senior posts. However, it set aside the High Court's directive that the promotees should retain their 1958 ranks, emphasizing the need for Central Government approval in consultation with the UPSC. The appeals were dismissed concerning the quashing of the Government of India's memorandum dated 20 September, 1967, but allowed to the extent of setting aside the High Court's order on the promotees' ranks. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.