Regarding the validity of the Circular the State companytended that the Circular dated August 27, 1966 was issued by the Chief Secretary in his administrative capacity being the Head of the Service in the State.
55 and 57 of 1968 and dismissed the cross objections filed by the appellant.
The State companytroverted the allegations of mala hides made by the appellant.
1 in C. A. No.
28B and 32 and the Circular dated August 27, 1966 on the same grounds as those mentioned in Civil Appeal No.
Even the principles laid down in the Circular regarding the award of marks for assessing the merit were arbitrary and vague.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General and K. Baldev, Mehta, for respondent No.
Apart from the fact that the State Government had the power either to fill up the posts or keep them vacant, in this particular case the vacancies were number filled up as an amendment of the rules was in companytemplation of the State Government.
Ultimately the petitioner was appointed to the Rajasthan Administrative Service with effect from January 6, 1950.
His companytention is that after the adverse remarks were companymunicated to him, long, afterwards he made representations and the adverse remarks were directed to be expunged.
Though it was admitted that the third respondent was the son in law of the Chief Minister of the State, it was denied that any favoritism was shown by the State either to that respondent or to the other respondents in the matter giving promotions to them.
Regarding the Circular dated August 27, 1966, the learned Judges held that the marking system indicated therein was really based upon the previous Circular dated August 31, 1960 under which merit was to be evaluated by allotting marks on the previous record of an officer.
The Division Bench held that the view of learned Single Judge that r. 28B 2 was bad was erroneous.
28B and 32 as well as the Circular of 1966 and the Order dated January 4, 1967 is the same as in the Civil Appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 20, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Special Appeals Nos.
28B and 32 and the Circular of 1966 and the promotions made under the order dated January 4, 1967, the writ petitioner challenges also the order dated January 22, 1970 companyfirming the promotions of respondents 2 to 16 in the Senior Scale.
with by the promotion Committee.
It was the duty of the State Government to place before the High Court all the materials available before it to enable the Court to companysider whether the grievance of the appellant was justified or number.
He also alleged mala fide against the State.
1815 of 1970 is against the decision of the Division Bench, reiterating the objections regarding the validity of the rules, the Circular, as well as the promotions made.
The Order dated January 4, 1967 was attacked on the ground that the promotions had been made on the basis of illegal rules as well as the directions companytained in the invalid Circular dated August 27, 1966.
It is the case of the appellant that prior to the numberification dated September 8, 1966 though many posts in the senior scale of service had fallen vacant even during the years 1963 64 and 1964 65, those posts were number filled up by making promotion on the basis of the principle of seniority cum merit which was in force at the relevant time.
The Government companyld have obtained a report or an affidavit regarding the true facts from a responsible officer of the Committee and placed it before the High Court.
Therefore, he seeks to get that order also quashed.
28B and 32 were number violative of either Arts.
1815 of 1970 .
It is the grievance of the appellant that under the Order dated January 4, 1967 a large number of officers who had qualified for promotion on the basis of merit under the merit formula were superseded by the officers junior to them.
Regarding the promotions made under order dated January 4, 1967, the learned Judge held that the directions companytained in the Circular must have been taken into account by the Selection Committee and hence the promotions were number valid.
The petitioner further states that after the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which is under attack in the Civil Appeal, the State Government passed an order on January 22, 1970 companyfirming the promotions of respondents Nos.
After referring to the rules as well as the amendments made from time to time and the Circular of 1966, the petitioner levels the same attack as against them similar to those in the civil appeal.
18 to 33.
After the probationary period of one year, he was companyfirmed in the service with effect from October 1, 1961.
Nevertheless, they kept quite and allowed the officiating promotions of all the officers to stand from 1967 and even kept quiet till the government companyfirmed the promotion of those officers on January 22, 1970.
The facts leading up to this writ petition may be stated The petitioner after obtaining the B. Sc.
2 to 16 were all his juniors and on the basis of the illegal rules and the directions given in the Circular, officiating promotions have been given to those respondents to the Senior Scale under the Order dated January 4, 1967.
Civil Appeal No.
76 of 1970 is filed by Motilal Kakkar, Apart from challenging rr.
So far as the writ petitioners are companycerned, the State must be companysidered to be justified in passing the order dated January 22,,1970, on which date the High Courts judgment was in its favour.
2 and 3 filed B. Special Appeal No.
M. Jain, for respondent No.
The appellant also challenged the validity and legality of the Circular dated Angus 27, 1966 as well as the order dated January 4, 1967 giving promotions to the respondents Nos.
The Circular has done numberhing except to lay down broad guidelines for the excercise of discretion by the Promotion Committee.
It is also admitted by the State Government that the companyfidential rolls of all the officers were before the Selection Committees They have number denied that the circular was number taking into account by the Committee.
It is admitted by the State that the Promotion Committee had met in the end of September, 1966 and made recommendations regarding the officers who are to be promoted.
He entered the Jodhpur State Civil Service on March 13, 1946 as a result of the companypetitive examination held by the Public Service Commission of that State.
only after the judgment dated January 20, 1970 of the High Court in D. B. Special Appeal No.
If the appellant is found eligible for being companysidered for promotion under the Rules, his claim also will have to be companysidered along with that of the respondents Nos.
According to the appellant by the Orders dated December 7, 1966 and January 4, 1967 promotions had been made quite companytrary to rr.
2 to 5 to the senior Posts, In the writ petition the appellant had alleged that the various amend ments made to the rules from time to time and the delay in making promotions to Senior Posts were all with a view to show favourtism to the third respondent who was the son in law of the Chief Minister of Rajasthan and to the other respondents who are all near relations of persons who were the favourites of the Chief Minister of the State.
The petitioner gives the rank of some of the respondents.
The officers companyered by those orders are respondents Nos.
He has been serving in various capacities and he was also sent for higher training to the United States of America by the Government of India during the period March 23, 1958 to September 27, 1958.
The circular dated August 27, 1966 was struck down and the promotions of respondents made under the order dated January 4, 1967 were also struck down.
The petitioner further says that several officers were selected on probationary basis and given promotions, but only respondents 91 2 Nos.
The appellant filed S. Writ Petition No.
Thus both the writ petitioners will be only entitled to have a declaration that the circular dated August 27, 1966 is invalid and that it is struck down.
Petitions under Art.
The appellant in the civil appeal is number challenging the officiating promotions or companyfirmation made of the officers other than respondents Nos.
The modi fications, if any, will be companyfirmed only to the appellant and the respondents Nos.
The same reasoning will apply to the order of February 21, 1970 also.
Regarding the promotions made under the Order dated January 14, 1967, the Division Bench upheld the same as it had already held that rules 28B and 32 as well as the Circular of 1966 were all valid.
A IV /66 dated January 22, 1970 and in Writ Petition No.
32 and the civil appeal, by special leave, companymon questions that arise for companysideration relate to the validity of rr.
57 of 1968.
Their companyfirmation will stand or fall depending on the final decision of this Court regarding the order dated January 4, 1967.
It is also seen that the order dated February 21, 1970 was passed by the State Government, after the order of stay was vacated by the High Court.
14 and 16.
Special Secretary to Government in the Appointments Department.
Coming to Writ Petition No.
3 to 17.
It is the view of the Division Bench that the Circular of 1966 was very elastic and gave wide discretion to the Committees to assess the merit of an officer.
1815 of 1970 .
On the other hand, they have impliedly accepted that the circular was before the Committee at the time of companysidering the promotions.
16 and hence that sub rule was bad.
2 to 4 in the appeal.
The appellant herein filed cross objections, in the appeal filed by the State challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of sub rule 1 or r. 28B and r. 32.
The respondents Nos.
3 in C. A. No.
The Division Bench by its order and judgment dated January 20, 1970 allowed the two appeals Nos.
According to the petitioner as the officiating promotions given to those respondents under the Order dated January 4, 1967 were invalid.
Ultimately, the Division Bench held that they had examined the cabinet file produced before them along with the numbere sheets and that the Court was satisfied that the Circular of 1966, has been issued with the approval of the State Government.
The State disputes the allegation of mala fides and has also pointed out that the Departmental Promotion Committee companysidered the claims of all the respondents including that of the petitioner for promotion.
After giving the history sheet of respondents Nos.
This approach made by the learned Judges does number appeal to us.
139 of 1970, who alone is challenging this order, will number be entitled to have that order reopened.
76 of 1970 to the effect that the adverse entries in the companyfidential rolls of Shri Guman Singh, the appellant, were expunged on his representations.
Differing from the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench held that numberpart of r. 28B 2 was invalid.
The said Circular of 1960 had been in operation in respect of the said services except the Rajasthan Judicial Service or the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, which were under the companytrol of the High Court.
We are entitled to take this circumstance into account for denying the larger reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners when they attack the orders dated January 4, 1970 and January 22, 1970.
The learned Judges rejected the plea of mala fides raised by the appellant herein.
On the basis of the recommendations made by the said Committee, the Government by the Order dated December 7, 1966 promoted 29 officers to the Senior Scale on the basis of seniority cum merit.
2 to 4 in the appeal, on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court which had upheld the validity of the rules and the circular.
2 to 4 in the civil appeal have been companyfirmed on January 22, 1970 after the decision of the High Court in favour of the State and those officers is of numberconsequence, so far as the appellant is companycerned, if their original officiating promotion on January 4, 1967 requires reconsideration by the Government.
In the civil appeal Guman Singh, the appellant has raised a companytention that promotions of respondents Nos.
1815 of 1970 are companycerned, we are giving separate directions, regarding the reconsideration of their promotion and companyfirmation, along with the appellant in the appeal.
B. Degree from the Agra University joined service in the Delhi Administration on February 6, 1954 as Extension Officer, Agriculture.
On this reasoning, the learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated November 7, 1968 held that sub rule 1 of r. 28B and r. 32 were valid and that sub rule 2 of r. 28B was violative of Art.
1 in W. P. No.
18 to 33 were companyfirmed by the order dated February 21, 1 970.
Promotions were made by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the said Committee.
According to the petitioner these orders are illegal and invalid for the same reasons urged in the civil appeal.
the order of companyfirmation is also equally bad.
79 of 1967 in the High Court challenging the vires of rr.
Regarding the authority for the Circular, the learned Judges numbered that there has been some companyfusion in the stand taken by the State from time to time even when they made applications for amending their companynter affidavit for making it clear that the Circular has been issued number by the Chief Secretary in his individual capacity but by the State Government.
The petitioner joined the Rajasthan Administrative Service on October 1, 1960 after having passed the companypetitive examination held by the State Public Service Commission.
32 of the Constitution of India for en forcement of fundamental rights.
The fact that the respondents Nos.
2 to 5 were promoted to the Senior Scale of Service on the basis of merit alone.
CIVIL APPELTATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
According to the appellant adverse remarks were companymunicated to him only on May 11, 1967, long after the decision of the Promotion Committee.
Regarding the allegation made by the appellant that the adverse remarks which had number been companymunicated to him had been taken into account by the Promotion Committee in September, 1966, the learned Judges held that as the Departmental Promotion Committee had number been impleaded as a party, the question whether the adverse remarks made against the appellant had been taken into account by the said Committee cannot be gone into in these proceedings.
They are number entitled to any further reliefs in the writ petitions.
Sen and K. Baldev Mehta, for respondent No.
Depending on the fresh recommendations, any, made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the first respondent, will also make any modifications that may be found necessary in the orders dated January 4, 1967 and January 21, 1970.
The stand taken by the State in respect of rr.
He has further companytended that the Promotion Committee which met in September, 1966 has taken into account the adverse remarks made against him which were number justified and which were number companymunicated to him.
2 to 4 in the Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had made a specific grievance in his writ petition about the uncommunicated adverse remarks having been taken into account by the Committee.
Writ Petitions Nos.
His rank has been given as Nos.
The Division Bench agreed with the views of the learned Single Judge regarding the validity of sub rule 1 of r. 28B and r. 32.
Again by the order dated January 4, 1967, which is another order under attack in these proceedings, 15 officers including the respondents Nos.
For this purpose the original r. 32 was substituted by a new rule providing for appointments to senior scale and selection grade posts on the basis of merit and seniority cum merit in the ratio of 1 2 on the recommendation of the Committee companystituted under the said rule.
1815 of 1970.
57 of 1968.
This new rule was also incorporated to give effect to the Governments decision taken in 1965 to introduce the system of recruitment to the service by promotion on the basis of merit, as a result of which r. 28B was earlier incorporated.
1, 32 and 33 in W. P. No.
139 of 1970, the petitioner challenges the validity of the IT.
55 of 1968.
On all these grounds the appellant attacked rules 28B and 32, the Circular dated August 27, 1966 and the Order dated January 4, 1967.
2 to 4 are found eligible for promotion and the appellant is number found eligible, the rank given to those respondents will remain the same as is number due to them as per the orders dated January 4, 1967 and January 21, 1970.
76 and 139 of 1970 have been filed in this Court.
76 of 1970 Baldev Mehta, for respondent Nos.
Apart from the attack levelled against rr.
Agricultural Degree in the First Division from the Delhi University and the LL.
On January 12, 1959 he was promoted as Block Development Officer in the Delhi Administration, in which capacity he companytinued till September 30, 1960.
2 to 4.
The State Government, as pointed out earlier, was justified in passing the order dated January 22, 1970 except regarding respondents Nos.
On the other hand, the Division Bench held that restricting the eligibility of officers who have put in at least six years of service was quite reasonable and the further provision in r. 28B 2 regarding the field of selection being companyfined to senior most officers in the Junior Scale number exceeding 10 times the total number of Vacancies was also reasonable.
After referring to the rules as originally framed and the amendments made from time to time, the petitioner attacks the validity of rr.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench have brushed aside the grievance of the appellant regarding This matter by observing that as the Departmental Promotion Committee is number a, party to the proceedings, the question whether the Committee took into account the adverse remarks said to have been made against the appellant, cannot be gone into in these proceedings.
2 to 16 in the Senior Scale.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidiyalingam.
Hence the Committee has illegally taken into companysideration the adverse remarks made against him and has denied him promotion on that account.
The State Government has filed a very elaborate companynter affidavit.
On this reasoning the learned Judges held that the Circular of 1966 was valid and it was in numberway repugnant to the rules.
3 to 17 by the Order dated January 4, 1967 as well as to the Order dated January 22, 1970, companyfirming their promotions.
The petitioner further challenges the order dated February 21, 1970 passed by the State Government promoting and companyfirming in the Senior Scale the respondents Nos.
28B and 32, the Circular dated August 27, 1966 and the Orders dated January 4, 1967 and January 22, 1970.
1815 of 1970 under the first order dated January 4, 1967 and their companyfirmation, by the second order dated January 22, 1970.
Another set of officers, who had been selected earlier, were appointed by promotion to the senior scale post by the order dated February 21, 1970.
Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the first respondent, the State, filed D. D. Special Appeal No.
1815/1970 and the petitioners in both the petitions.
The system of marking indicated in the Circular was quite good as it brought about uniformity in the procedure for assessment of merit.
After the new r. 32 was incorporated on September 8, 1966 the Government took steps to fill up the 44 vacancies in the Senior Scale of Service and for this purpose a Departmental Promotion Committee was companystituted and the Committee met in the end of September, 1966 for companysidering the claims of the officers for purposes of promotion.
Supplies, Jodhpur.
He became the District Manager of Food Corporation of India and was holding that post since July 1, 1968.
The petitioner then refers to the officiating promotions to the Senior Scale given to the respondents Nos.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh and R. K. Jain, for the appellant in C. A. No.
57 of 1968 and the respondents Nos.
If ultimately respondents Nos.
Therefore, the petitioner in writ petition No.
The State finally prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.
139/1970.
In this companynection, learned companynsel relied upon the companynter affidavit filed in this Court on behalf of the State in writ petition No.
Therefore, according to the appellant, his claims for promotion have number been properly dealt.
Later on he was on deputation as Principal, Tribal Orientation and Study Centre during the period May 22, 1964 to March 31, 1967.
1815 of 1970 arises out of the Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated January 20, 1970 in D. B. Special Appeal No.
J, In both the writ petitions under Art.
The petitioners must have been aware that the appellant was challenging only the promotions of four officers in his writ petition 59 1 S.C.R. India/71 in the High Court.
Rules 28B and 32 were challenged as violative of Arts.
nevertheless certain adverse remarks companytained in the companyfidential rolls which were number companymunicated to him, had been taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met in the last week of September, 1966 and hence there has been numberproper companysideration of his claims for being promoted to the Senior post.
Civil Appeal No.
76 and 139 of 1970.
F. 2 24 Apptts.
Hence the promotions given and companyfirmations made of the other officers under orders dated January 4, 1967 and January 22, 1970 respectively should be allowed to stand.
Regarding the Circular dated August 27, 1966, the State companytended that the marking system laid down in the Circular for assessment of merit of an officer was calculated to ensure objectivity of approach on the part of the Selection Committee.
A IV /66 dated January 4, 1967.
The nature of the various Orders as well as the Rules and the Circular that are challenged will be referred to later at the appropriate stage.
In the two writ petitions the Order No.
F. 27 24 A A 4 /66 dated February 21, 1970 are also challenged.
2 to 4 as the appellant is number challenging the promotions given to other officers under the said two orders.
At the time of the formation of the Rajasthan Union, the petitioner was working as Assistant Director, Civil ?
D/50 dated August 27, 1966 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan as well as the Order of the Government of Rajasthan No.
On September 8, 1966 the State decided to extend the principles of making selections on the basis of merit alone to appointments to senior posts also.
So far as respondents Nos.
Nevertheless the vacancies were number filed up by the State.
The State has further companytended that as the rules are valid and the circular is also valid, the officiating promotions given under the Order dated January 4, 1967 are also valid.
The petitioner thereafter was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as an Assistant Commissioner during the period June 17, 1963 to April 21, 1964.
6 Apptts.
On August 27, 1966 the impugned circular was issued by the Chief Secretary to the State Government.
By the Order dated January, 1966, the State Government created 26 new posts in the Senior Scale of Service and 14 posts in the Selection Grade with effect from the date of the order.
55 and 57 of 1968 and Writ Petitions Nos.
Those allegations have been denied by the State.
139 of 1970 a further Order of the State Government No.
2 to 16, the petitioner claims that he was the senior most amongst them and that his seniority has been so stated in the relevant seniority list.
In particular the appellant companytended that though his service record for the year 1965 66 was quite good.
In companysequence the State points out that the order of companyfirmation dated January 22, 1970 is also valid.
1815 of 1970.
2 to 4 were made on January 4, 1967 on the basis of illegal rules and invalid circular.
According to the petitioner respondent Nos.
The nature of the adverse remarks has been referred to by the Division Bench.
28B and 32 as violative of Arts.
The facts leading up to the writ petition are as follows The petitioner after obtaining his M. A. Degree in History and the Law Degree from the Lucknow University joined service in the erstwhile State of Jodhpur on August 1, 1943 as a Special Officer Settlement .
2 to 5 do number appear to have filed any companynter affidavit.
According to the appellant, the Circular dated August 27, 1966 was issued without any authority and in any event the Government by execution instructions had numberpower to fetter the powers of the Selection Committees which were functioning under the statutory rules.
332 in the Seniority List of the Rajasthan Administrative Officers issued in 1964.
As there were as many as 35 sets of service rules governing various services, the Circular was issued to bring about uniformity in the procedure for assessment of merit and for making selections on the basis of seniority cum merit.
