Union of India and Others vs V. Srirama Reddy and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—1. The order dated 20.4.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. Nos. 906 & 907/2014 is called in question in these writ petitions.

By the impugned order, the petitioners herein are directed to place respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein in the year of allotment, i.e., year 2001, in accordance with Indian Administrative Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. The Tribunal has ultimately concluded that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to allotment year 2001 in respect of IAS cadre and consequently they are conferred with all the benefits flowing therefrom.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service on 27.1.1986, to the post equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector. They have completed more than 25 years of continuous service in the civil services not below the rank of Deputy Collector. They gained promotion to Indian Administrative Service in view of the order passed by the first petitioner on 14.11.2011 as against vacancies for the year 2008, which means the vacancies in IAS cadre, in the matter on hand, occurred in the year 2008. The seniority of Officers in the cadre of IAS is regulated by the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 (''Seniority Rules'' for short). Rule 3 of the said Rules pertains to assignment of order of allotment. The Seniority Rules were modified to certain extent w.e.f. 18.4.2012. The modified Seniority Rules would affect the service career of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the maximum extent. Petitioner No. 1 has assigned the year of allotment as 2002 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 based on modified Seniority Rules, 2012.

Being dissatisfied with the year of allotment 2002, ordered by the first petitioner as mentioned supra, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 906 & 907/2014 seeking a declaration that the year of allotment made vide notification dated 6.2.2014 (on which date the seniority of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as IAS was fixed) as 2002 is arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, they sought for a direction to assign the year of allotment as 2001. The Central Administrative Tribunal on considering the entire material on record and on hearing, allowed the applications filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and granted the relief in their favour as prayed for. The said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is assailed in these writ petitions by the Union of India.

Sri Krishna Dixit, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, taking us through the entire material on record submits that in view of the amended Seniority Rules which came into force on 18.4.2012, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are rightly assigned the year of allotment as 2002. According to him, the amended Seniority Rules would govern the field and hence the Tribunal is not justified in granting the relief in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relying on unamended Rules pertaining to IAS Officers.

Per contra, Sri Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued in support of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

On hearing the learned advocates on record and on going through the material on record, we find that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper. Admittedly, vacancies in IAS cadre occurred in the year 2008. The selection of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for 2008 vacancies was made on 2.11.2011. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted to IAS cadre on 14.12.2011. Seniority Rules pertaining to IAS Officers were modified to certain extent w.e.f. 18.4.2012. It is not in dispute that in case if the modified/amended Seniority Rules are applied retrospectively to the case of respondents 1 and 2, they would be losing seniority of one year. But, the modified Seniority Rules which came into effect on 18.4.2012, cannot be given retrospective effect. As mentioned supra, the vacancies relating IAS cadre occurred as far back as in the year 2008. For the reasons best known to the petitioners/concerned Selection Committee, they did not meet for considering the names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for inclusion in the selection list till the year 2011. Selections were made only on 2.11.2011 in respect of 2008 vacancies. Since respondents 1 and 2 were selected in respect of the year 2008 vacancies, and as the selection is made on 2.11.2011 (i.e., much prior to 18.4.2012), the modified Seniority Rules of 18.4.2012 cannot be made applicable. At the time when vacancies arose and at the time of selection, old Seniority Rules were operating. Based on the old/unamended Rules, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the year of allotment as 2001 and not 2002. As mentioned supra, the amended recruitment rules in which weightage given to the length of service rendered has been reduced cannot be given retrospective effect in view of the fact that it has been explicitly stated in the IAS Amended Rules, 2012 that they shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Gazette notification, i.e., from 18.4.2012.

In this context, it is also relevant to note the provisions of All India Services Act, 1951 (''Act'' for short). Section 3 of the said Act (relevant portion) reads thus:-

"3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service- (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned including the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and by notification in the official gazette make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to an All India Service.

(1-A) The power to make rules conferred by this section shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the rules or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any rules so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such rule may be applicable."

(Emphasis supplied)

Sub-Section (1-A) of Section 3 of the Act, makes it amply clear that the power to make Rules conferred under Section 3 of the Act shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the rules or any of them; but no retrospective effect shall be given to any rules so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such rule may be applicable. Admittedly, it is deemed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are born in IAS cadre in the year 2008 since the vacancies of IAS arose in the year 2008. If it is so, the unamended Seniority Rules which existed then would operate. The amended Seniority Rules which came into effect from 18.4.2012, firstly cannot be made applicable to the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the fact that those Rules cannot be given retrospective effect. Secondly, since the amended Seniority Rules affect the interest of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prejudicially, such Rules cannot be given retrospective effect.

Sri Bhagwat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 however drawing the attention of the Court to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in O.A. No. 84/2011, disposed of on 4.8.2014, contends that similar view as the one taken by us in this matter is taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in respect of an IPS Officer, and such order of the Tribunal is not questioned by the Union of India before any Court and same has been accepted by the Union of India and acted upon. The said submissions are recorded and such submission is not disputed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. It is relevant to note that the Seniority Rules of IPS Officers are akin to the Seniority Rules of IAS Officers.

Be that as it may, since we find that the Tribunal is justified in granting the relief in favour of the first respondent because of the aforementioned reasons, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, writ petitions fail and the same stand dismissed.