SA TY A NARAIN SHUKLA A
v.
UNION OF lNDIA & ORS.
MAY 11, 2006
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B
Service Law
Empanelment of State cadre Indian Administrative Service officer for
post of Additional Secretary to Government of India-Central Staffing
Scheme formula1ed by a resolulion of Government of India-Validity and c
applicability of-Held: The Scheme was neither a Rule nor Regulation within
meaning of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, I95I hence it could not
be said to be invalid for formulation without consultation of State
Government-It was not unconstitutional as Central Government's executive
power extended to same subjects and extent as that of Parliament, as long
as it did not infringe any provision of any rule made by the Parliament or D
of constitution-The several set of Rules framed under the Act were not
exhaustive of all service conditions applicable to IAS, and field of possible
executive action was not completely occupied by either statute or rules
framed thereunder-These Rules did not specifically deal with subject and
it was open to executive to resort to executive instructions by way ofan office E
memo to prescribe procedure for selection of officers from State cadre for
post of Additional Secretary/Secr~ta1y to Government of India-Also,
appointment to post of additional Secretaiy to Government of India was not
a promotion for an /AS officer and therefore empanelment of a State cadre
!AS officer to that post was not a promotion-Articles 309 and 312 of
Constitution of India, 1950. F
Appellant, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in
State cadre, was considered for but not empanelled as Additional Secretary
to the Go\·ernment of India. Objecting to this, he filed an Original
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This was
dismissed on the ground that (i) the Central Staffing Scheme, formulated
G
by Government oflndia resolution dated 17.10.1957, was constitutional
and valid (ii) post of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Government
of India was not a promotional post for an all-India Services officer of
State cadre (iii) there were no mala fides and arbitrariness in his non-
empanetment. Against this, appellant approached the High Court. The H
275
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A High Court did not entertain the plea that the Central Staffing Scheme
was unconstitutional, but taking the view that emplanetment to the post
of level of Secretary to Government of India was a promotional post, it
directed consideration of the appellant's case afresh by taking into
consideration all relevant records such as his confidential report, dossiers,
letters of appreciation including memories etc. Hence the present appeals.
B
Appellant contended that the Central Staffing Scheme was (i) ultra
vires Section 3 of the All India Service Act, 1951 as it did not in terms
say that it was issued after consultation with the State Governments, like
when it was formulated (ii) ultra vires Articles 309 and 312 of the
Constitution as several set of Rules framed by the Central Government
c in exercise of its statutory powers under the Act occupied the whole field
of executive discretion and therefore, by the doctrine of occupied field,
there was no scope left for exercise of executive action outside the purview
of these Rules (iii) arbitrary executive action for want of clear cut
guidelines.
D Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : l.1. The Central Staffing Scheme is neither a Rule nor
Regulation within the meaning of Section 3 of the AII India Services Act,
1951, nor is it possible to accept that there is no other power available
to the executive to deal with the recruitment and conditions of service.
E
(283-B-C']
l.2. The Central Government's executive power extends to the same
subjects and to the same extent as that of the Parliament, as long as it
does not infringe any provision of any rule made by the Parliament or
F of the Constitution. Hence, the Central Staffing Scheme is not
unconstitutional. (283-D, 284-A-B(
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1955) SC
549, relied on.
G 1.3. The guidelines indicated in para 14 of the Central Staffing
Scheme are sufficiently clear enough to steer clear of the charge of
possible arbitrary use. (285-G I
2. Each one of the Rules framed by the Central Government in
exercise of its statutory powers under the Act is intended to take care of
H a specific facet of the IAS. These Rules are not exhaustive by itself of all
SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. 277
the service conditions applicable to the IAS. It is, therefore, incorrect to A
contend that the field of possible executive action is completely occupied
by the statute or the statutory rules framed there under, deriving force
from Article 309 read with Article 312 of the Constitution of India. It has
not been shown that of any provisions in these Rules dealt sptcifically
with the subject of the procedure for selection of officers from the said
cadre for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government B
of India. This is a subject in respect of which the field does not appear
to be occupied. Consequently, it was very much open to the executive to
resort to executive instructions by way of an offence memo for dealing
with the subject. [28S-B, D-F]
3. Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme suggests that appointment
c
to the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India is not a
promotion for an IAS officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that
empanelment of a State cadre officer for the post of Additional Secretary/
Secretary to the Government oflndia, is a promotion. If it was otherwise,
then an officer the State cadre who is appointed to the Government of D
India can never be sent back to his State cadre, for the benefit of
promotion once given cannot be withdrawn unless for extraordinary
reasons. (286-F-G, 287-A-B]
Union of India v. Samar Singh, [1996] 10 SCC SSS, relied on. E
Debesh Chandra Das v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1970) SC 77 and State
of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy, AIR (1973) SC 1146, distinguished.
4. The records did not show any strong motive for any of the officers
who had written CR dossiers of appellant to bear animus against him to F
ensure that he was not empanelled. Dissent is the essence of democracy
and merely because one disagrees with another, one cannot jump to the
conclusion that the other harbors a grudge against the former. [289-C-D]
Union of India v. Samar Singh, (1996] 10 SCC SSS, relied on.
G
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 24 75 of
2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.2002 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No. 909(SB) of 2000. H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Petitioner-in-person.
T.S. Doabia. Ms. Sunita Sharma and P. Parmeswaran forthe Appellant.
Punit Dutt Tyagi for the Respondent.
B Caveator-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SRIKRISHNA, J. : These two appeals impugned the same judgment
of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and are in the nature of
C cross appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
These appeals arise out of an order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Lucknow. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal"), which was
moved by Satya Narain Shukla, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2003
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'). The Tribunal declined any relief
D to the appellant and dismissed his original application. The appellant carried
a writ petition to the High Court and the Division Bench granted him partial
relief. There is an appeal by the appellant in respect of the relief denied to
him and t~1ere is an appeal by the Union of India in respect of that part of
the relief granted to the appellant by the High Court. •
E
The Facts
The appellant was sdected as an officer of the Indian Administrative
Service (!AS) and was allotted UP cadre in the year 1967. He held different
postings and was promoted to the Super Time Scale in the year 1982. In
F September 1996, the appellant was considered for empanelment as additional
Secretary to the Government of India, but was not empanelled. Several
representations were made by him to the authorities against his exclusion
from the panel of Additional Secretaries to the Government of India on the
ground that his case had been considered on the basis of wrong appreciation
G of the character rolls and ACRs, which had not been recorded in accordance
with the All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. In December
1977 the appellant" s case was reviewed along with those of several other
officers of the 1967 batch of !AS officer. His representations were not placed
before the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) and the Appointments
H Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). He was not. however, empanelled.
SA TY A NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 279
The appellant filed Original Application (OA) NO. 38/1998 before the A
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, on 28.1.1998. He alleged that the
failure of the authorities to include him in the panel for Additional Secretaries
to the Government of India was illegal on several grounds including ma/a
jides on the part of some of the reporting officers. He also sought a direction
from the Tribunal to the authorities for streamlining the system of recording
annual confidential reports (ACRs) and to make the procedure for
B
empanelment objective, fair and transparent. The tribunal made an interim
order on 24.2.1998 directing that further empanelment and postings of 1967
and 1968 batch !AS officers junior to the appellant shall be subject to the
decision of the OA. The appellant also submitted a memorial to the President
for review of his case for empanelment as Additional Secretary to the c
Government of India but got no relief.
On 15.09.1998, the appellant sought an amendment for amending the
relief clause in his OA and prayed for a direction to reconsider his case for
empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India and also
to consider him for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India.
D
These amendments were allowed on 23.3.1999. On LS.1999, he sent another
representation to the Cabinet Secretary to decide his earlier memorial
addressed to the President and to give him justice by empanellment as
Secretary to the Government of India.
E
On 12.5.1999, the Tribunal made a further interim order directed to
authorities to complete the appellant's character roll (CR) and to take a
decision on his representations dated 31.8.1998 and 6.3.1999 before
considering him for empanellment to the post of Secretary to the Government
of India. On 29.7.1999, the Tribunal made a further direction that the
F
appellant's representation dated 1.5 .1999 should be decided before finalising
the empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of India. On
31.8.1999, the Government of India ifnormed the appellant that his CR had
been completed and the ACR for 1993-94, about which he had some
grievance, had been cancelled. The Government oflndia, however, declined
to deal with and take action on his representations on the ground that the G
matter was sub Judice before the Tribunal.
In September 1999, the SCoS met for empanellment for the post of
Secretary to the Government of India and after considering his record the
appellant was not included in the panel. H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A On 11 .1.2000. the appellant made a statutory memorial to the President
alleging that he had been wrongly excluded from the panel for the post of
Secretary to the Government of India. However, he got no relief therefrom
Sometime in February 2000, the ACC met and accorded approval to
the recommendations made by the SCoS for the panel of 1967 batch for
B the post of secretary to the Government of India. Again on 7.3 .2000, the
appellant sent another memorial to the President ag~inst his exclusion from
the panel of the post of Secretary to the Government of India while two other
officers junior to him. and allegedly of lesser merit, had been empanelled.
On 28.4.2000, the Tribunal Dismissed the OA holding that the post of
c Additional Secretary to the Government of India or Secretary to the
Government of India was not a promotional post for an all-India Services'
officer of Stat<! cadre, and therefore, most of the contentions urged, which
proceeded on the footing that the empanellment to the post of Additional
Secretary to the Government of India or the Secretary to the Government
of India was a promotional post, were irrelevant. The Tribunal also held that
D
once the appellant was considered for empanellment for the post of Secretary
to the Government of India, as he had become eligible for such consideration,
there was no roint in directing the respondent authorities to consider his case
for empanellment for the post of Additional Secretary to the government of
India. The Tribunal took the view that the posts of Additional Secretary and
E Secretary to the Government of India were very high and responsible posts
for which only officers with outstanding t!ntries in ACRs and excellent
recommendations should be considered. It was also held that the ACRs were
not the only consideration for empanellment. The Tribunal was satisfied that
the SCoS had taken into consideration the change made in the ACR
F consequent to the direction of the Tribunal and it had considered the
empanellment of the appellant for the post of Secretary to the Government
of India after the representation dated 1.5 I999 had been decided. The
challenge made by the appellant to the constitution and validity of the Central
Staffing Scheme was declined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed
the allegations of ma/a fides and arbitrariness in not considering the appellant
G for empanelemnt and dismissed his petition
The High Court party allowed the petition and the appellant. It held that
all relevant papers including the representations made by the appellant,
appreciation k:tter'> written in his favour and the memorials made by him
H against dov.ngraded entries and outstanding entne; should have been placed
SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.) 281
by the authorities before the SCoS which should have applied its free and A
independent mind to arrive at the best possible conclusion for empanellment.
The High Court declined to entertain and enter into the contention that the
Central Staffing Scheme was violative of the provisions of the Constitution
of India. But, taking the view that empanellment to the post of the level of
Secretary to the Government of India was a promotional post, directed
consideration of the appellant's case afresh for empanellment as Additional
B
Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India by taking into consideration
all relevant records as such his confidential report dossiers, letters of
appreciation including memories etc.
We have heard the appellant in person as well as counsel for the Union C
of India. Despite the somewhat lengthy written arguments filed by the
appellant, the points which need consideration are only the following :
I. Whether the Central Staffing Scheme is unconstitutional;
II. Whether para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme is ultra virus D
Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution of India;
III. Whether the post of Additional Secretary to the Government
of India and above are promotional posts for !AS officers;
IV. Whether the appellant's non-empanellment to the above post E
is arbitrary and vitiated on account of malafides, arbitrariness
or violative of applicable rules.
I. Constitutional validity of the Central Staffing Scheme
The appellant strongly urged that his case falls under the procedure
F
prescribed in the Central Staffing Scheme, which is wholly unconstitutional
and illegal. According to the appellant, the service conditions of IAS officers
are governed by the provisions of the All India Services Act, 1951 (AIS Act)
and the Rules framed thereunder. The appellant contended that it was not
permissible for the Government of India to prescribe any procedure therefor G
other than by way of rules framed strictly in accordance with the AIS Act.
In his submission, no executive order made in respect of a matter under
Article 309 or 312 could be inconsistent with the statutory rules framed under
the AIS Act. The Central Staffing Scheme was neither the provisions of any
legislative enactment nor a supporting legislation framed under the AIS Act, H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and, therefore, to the extent of inconsistency with the said Act or the Rules
framed thereunder, it was illegal. For this contention, the appellant relied on
the judgment of this Court in UK. Rao and Others v. S. Bhallacharya' and
A.B. Krishna v State of Karnataka'.
Article 312 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may by law
B provide for the creation of one or more all-India Service common to th.:
Union and the State, and, subject to the other provisions of that Chapter,
regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed,
to any such service. Further, the IAS and the JPS are deemed to be services
created by the Parliament in order to enable the Parliament to deal with the
C service conditions of the members of the said services. Section 3 of the AIS
Act provides as under:
"Section 3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service ·
(l) the Central Uovernment may, after consultation with the
Governments of the States concerned including the State of
D
Jammu and Kashmir and by notification in the Official Gazette
make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the condition
of service of persons appointed to an All-India Service."
On 17.10.1957, the Central Staffing Scheme was formulated by a
E resolution of the Government of India and was intended to make "adequate
arrangements for staffing senior administrative posts of and above the rank
of Depute Secretary to the Uovernment of India." This staffing scheme has
been amended from time to time by resolutions of subsequent dates and the
last one relevant to us, which was challenged by the appellant, was dated
F 5.1.1996. The contention of the appellant is that when the Central Staffing
Scheme was fonnulated on 17. I 0 .1957 it was clearly mentioned therein that
it had been done "in consultation with the State Government and other
authorities concerned". The appellant contended that section 3 of the AIS
Act also requires consultation with the States for making of rules. The
impugned Central Staffing Scheme contained in the OM dated 5.1.1996 does
G not, in terms, say that it has been issued after consultation with the Statt:
Governments. Hence, the contention i5 that it is ultra virus Section 3 of the
AIS Act.
1. [1998] 4 sec 189
H 2. [1998] 3 SLL" 4~5.
SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 283
... In our view, the contention raised by the appellant has no merit. Section A
3 is an enabling power of the Central Government to make Rules for the
regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service for persons appointed
to the all-India services. This enabling power is hedged in with the
requirement that before doing so there has to be consultation with the State
Governments concerned and every rule made in such fashion is to be placed
before both the Houses of the Parliament as required by sub-section (2)
B
thereof. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the
Central Staffing Scheme is either a rule or a Regulation within the meaning
of Section 3 of the AIS Act, nor is it possible to accept that there is no other
power available to the executive to deal with the recruitment and conditions
of service otherwise than by a validly made rule under Section 3 of the AIS c
Act.
It is not well established that the Central Government's executive power
extends to the same subjects and to the same extent as that of the Parliament,
as long as it does not infringe any provision of any law made by the
D
Parliament or of the Constitution. In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and
Others v. The State of Punjab', this Court has observed (vide para 12):
"It may not be possible to frame an exhaustive definition of what
executive function means and implies. Ordinarily the executive power
connotes residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and E
judicial function are taken away.
The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of
separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different
parts or branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated
and consequently it can very well be said that our Constitution does not
F
contemplate assumption, by one organs or part of the State, to functions that
essentially belong to another. The executive indeed can exercise the powers
of departmental or subordinate legislation when such powers are delegated
to it by the legislature.
G
It can also, when so empowered, exercise judicial functions in a limited
way. The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions
of the Constitution or of any law. This is clear from the provisions of Article
154 of the Constitution but, as we have already stated, it does not follow
3. AIR (1955) SC 549. H
284 SUPREMI:: COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A from this that in order to enable the executive to function there must be a
law already in existence and that the powers of the executive are limited
merely to the carrying out of these laws."
Hence, we are unable to accept the contention that the Central Staffing
Scheme is unconstitutional.
B
II. Constitutional validity of Para l 4of the Central Stajfinx
The selection of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of
India has been carried out in accordance with para 14 of the Central Staffing
Scheme. Para 14 reads as under :
c
.. Additional Secretary1Special Secretary/Secretary
14. Selection for inclusion on the panel of officers adjudged suitable
for the appointment to the posts of Additional Secretary or Special
Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India and posts equivalent
D
thereto, will be approved by the ACC on the basis of proposals
submitted by the Cabinet Secretary. In this task, the Cabinet
Secretary may be assisted by a Special Committee of Secretaries for
drawing up proposals for the consideration of ACC. As far as
possible panels of suitable officers will be drawn up on an annual
E basis considering all officers of a particular year of allotment from
one service together as a group. lnclus1on in such panels will be
through the process of strict selection and evaluation of such
qualities as merit, competence, leadership and a flair for participating
in the policy-making process. Posts at these levels at the Centre
filled according to the Central Staffing Scheme are not to be
F
considered a5 posts for the betterment of promotion prospects of any
service. The need of the Central Government would be paramount
consideration. While due regard would be given to seniority, filling
up of any sp..:cific post would be based on merit, competence and
the specific suitability of the officer for a particular vacancy in the
G Central Government."
Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme makes it clear that empanelment
will be through the process of strict selection and evaluation of ·'merit,
competence, leadership and a flair for participating in the policy-making
H process''. It is also made clear therein that posts at these levels in the Centre
SA TY A NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRJKRISHNA, J.] 285
filled according to the Central Staffing Scheme are not to be considered as A
posts for the betterment of promotion prospects of e.ny service and that the
need of the Central Government would be the paramount consideration.
While due regard would be given to seniority, filling of any specific post
would be based on merit, competence and specific suitability of the officer
for a particular vacancy in the Central Government.
B
The appellant contended that this provision of the Central staffing
Scheme is ultra virus Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution. Amplifying
this it is urged by the appellant that several Rules have been framed by the
Central Government in exerci~e of its statutory powers under AIS Act, 1951,
i.e. Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1951; Indian Administrative c
Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955; Indian Administrative
Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1987; Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules,
1954; and that these Rules occupy the whole field of executive discretion,
and, therefore, by the doctrine of occupied field there is no scope left for
D
exercise of executive action outside the purview of these Rules. It is difficult
to accept this contention. Each one of these Rules is intended to take care
of a specific facet of the !AS. No set of these Rules is exhaustive by itself
of all the service conditions applicable to the !AS. It is, therefore incorrect
to contended that the field of possible executive action is completely
occupied by the statute or the statutory rules framed thereunder, deriving E
force from Article 309 read with Article 312 of the Constitution of India.
We· have not been shown any provisions in these Rules which deal
specifically with the subject of the procedure for selection of officers from
the said cadre for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government
of India. This is a subject in respect of which the field does not appear to F
be occupied. Consequently, it was very much open to the executive of resort
to executive instructions by way of an office memo for dealing with this
subject. The contention, therefore, must fail.
The further contention that para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme
leaves room for arbitrary executive action for want of clear cut guidelines
G
has no merit. The guidelines indicated therein are sufficiently clear enough
to steer clear of the charge of possible arbitrary use.
Ill. Whether the post of Additional secretary to the Government of India
and above are promotional posts for !AS Officers; H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A It is next contended by the appellant that the post of additional
Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is a promotional post of !AS
officers. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court Debesh
Chandra Das v. Union of lndid'. This was a case of an IAS officer of the
Assam cadre, who was appointed as Special Secretary to the Government
of India, but later on reverted to Assam services, which resulted in reduction
B of his pay, and the other option given to him was to continue in Central
Government service in a lower pay scale. This was considered to be a lower
ranked post because as a Special Secretary at the Central Government
services he was·enjoying higher pay, emoluments and status. Being reverted
to the State cadre, according to this Court, amounted to reversion to a lower
C post accompanied by a stigma, in the peculiar facts of the case, particularly
when the appointment of the appellant as Special Secretary was for a tenure
of 5 years an'1 was terminated before expiry thereof. In these circumstances,
this Court took the view that reverting the appellant-officer to the State cadre
amounted to reversion with stigma, which required action in accordance with
D Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and, that not having been done, the action
of reversion was held to be illegal. We notice that the Central Staffing
Scheme was not even referred to or considered by the judgment. We are,
therefore, unable to accept the contention that this judgment supports the
proposition canvassed.
E Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Mysore
v. Krishna Murthy'. This was case where members of the same service
belonging to the same cadre were treated differently for promotional
purposes merely on the ground that they came from different streams. Hence,
his judgment is of no relevance to us.
F
Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme read in the light of the judgment
of this Court in Union of India v. Samar Singh' also suggests that
appointment to the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government
of India is not a promotion for an IAS officer.
G We are, therefore, unable to accept that empanellment of a State cadre
officer for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of
4. AIR (1970) SC 77.
5. AIR (1973) 1140.
H 6. [1996] 10 sec 555.
SA TY A NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 287
India is a promotion as contended. If the argument of the appellant is A
· accepted, then an officer of the State cadre who is appointed to the
Government of India can never be sent back to his State cadre, for the benefit
of promotion once given cannot be withdrawn unless for extraordinary
reasons. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the appellant's
contention that the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government
of India is a promotional post for an !AS officer.
B
IV. Whether the appellant's non-empanellment is vitiated
The last contention urged by the appellant is that his non-empanellment
to the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India was
arbitrary, vitiated by ma/a fides and violative of applicable rules. The first
c
argument in respect of his contention is that no reasons have been given for
his non-empanellment or for empanellment of officers junior to him. Union
of India v. Samar Singh (supra) was a case of empanellment of an !AS officer
under para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme. In that case the respondent
contended that the committee constituted under the provisions of the Central D
Staffing Scheme had wrongly and unjustifiably not chosen the respondent
for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India. After referring
to para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme and the observations as to the
limited nature of review for selection for appointment indicated in Dalpat
Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan 1 ; Jai Narain Misra (Dr) v. State of E
Bihar' and Major General l.P.S. Dewan v. Union of Jndia 9, this Court
observed in para 11 as under:
"This would show that the Committee, keeping in ·view the record and
experience including the conceptual and leadership abilities, achievements
and potential for general management positions, had recommended 19 IAS F
officers for holding the post of Secretaries and 7 !AS officers for holding
non-secretarial post. Merely because the minutes of the Committee do not
contain the reason for non-selection of the respondent does not mean that
there has been no proper consideration of the merits and suitability of the
respondent and as a result the selection is vitiated. From the minutes of the G
Special Committee it is evident that in the matter of empanellment of oficers
1. [1990J 1 sec 305
8. [1971] 1 sec 30
9. [1995] 3 sec 383 H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R
A the Special Committee has taken mto account the criteria that are laid down
for holding such selection in para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the said selection is vitiated on account of
non-inclusion of the name of the respondent in the panel."
Another contention urged by the appellant is that the appellant has an
B outstanding service record. and therefore, his non-empanellment is arbitrary.
This Court has reiterated in Samar Singh (supra) that merely because an
officer has an outstanding service record there is no automatic empanellment
After referring to para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme. this Court observed
(vide para 12) as follows :
c
"Apart from the record there are other matters that have to be
considered, namely, merit. competence, leadership and flair for
participating in the policy-making process and the need of the
Central Government which is the paramount consideration. We are
D unable to hold that since the performance of the respondent after
his promotion as Additional Secretary had been found to be
excellent and outstanding, the non-inclusion of his name from the
panel by the Special Committee must lead to the inference that there
was no proper consideration of the merit and suitability of the
respondent for cmpanellment by the Special Committee."
E
There is no merit in the contention that the non-empanellment of the
appellant is arbitrary, as urged.
Finally, the appellant also urged that his non-empanellment was the
F result of ma/a fides. In support of this contention he has contended that his
ACRs were not written fairly and in fact his excellent record had been spoiled
by his superior officer on account of ma/a fides against him. When we
repeatedly queried him as to what were the ma/a fides alleged before the
Tribunal and the High Court, he contended that his ACRs had been left
G incomplete and his empanellment as Additional Secretary.1Secretary to the
Government of India was considered on the basis of incomplete ACRs. The
appellant had made an application to the Tribunal that his empanellment
should be considered only after the authorities are directed to complete his
CR dossiers. As a matter of fact. the prayer made by the appellant was
granted by the Tribunal and the authorities concerned were directed to
H
,. SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA v. U.0.1. [SRIKRlSHNA, J.] 289
complete the CR dossiers of the appellant and only thereafter to take a A
decision on empanellment. Thus, it is clear that the decision for empanellment
for the post of Secretary was not based on incomplete ACRs.
The appellant then contended that some officer were biased against him
and their assessment was vitiated by ma/a fides. Wjlen we asked him as to B
who the said officers were, he named a former Cabinet Secretary, T.S.R.
Subramanian, and certain other officers who had written his CR dossiers. The
reasons for malafides alleged by him are that he had seriously disagreed with
some of the policy decision taken by some of these officers, and therefore,·
they bore an animus against him. He also contended that the very officers
who had written his downgraded entries, later on were involved in some c
scandals. In our view, neither of these grounds hold any water. From the
records we do not see any strong motive for any of the officers to bear animus
against the appellant to ensure that he was not empanelled. Dissent is the
essence of democracy and merely because one disagrees with another, one
cannot jump to the conclusion that the other harbors a grudge against the D
former.
The appellant also argued that the remarks made in the A\R were not
communicated to him. It was also urged by the appellant that this Court
should direct the authorities to streamline the whole procedure so that even E
remarks like 'good' or 'very good' made in ACRs should be made
compulsorily communicable to the officers concerned so that an officer may
not lose his chance of empanellment at a subsequent point of his service.
In our view, it is not our function to issue such directions. It is for the
Government to consider how to streamline the procedure for selection. We
can only examine ifthe procedure for selection as adopted by the Government
F
is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal or vitiated by arbitrariness and ma/a
fides.
After, careful application of mind to all the contentions urged before
• G
us, we are not satisfied that there are any vitiating factors affecting the
decision of the Central Government in not empanelling the appellant for the
post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India.
The appellant in his enthusiasm cited a large number of other judgments
both in his oral and written submissions. Having carefully perused them, we H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A are of the view that they are hardly of any assistance to us a resolution of
the dispute before us in the present appeals.
In the result, we hold as under :
I. The provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme including para 14
B thereto are not unconstitutional;
2. In view of the express provisions of para 14 of the Central Staffing
Scheme, read in the light of the judgment of his Court in Samar
Singh (supra), the appointment of State cadre !AS officers for the
c post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India
does not amount to promotion.
3. The non-empanellment of the appellant for the post of Additional
Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India was neither
arbitrary nor contrary to the Rules nor vitiated by ma/a fides as
D alleged.
In the result, we allow Civil Appeal No. 2081 of 2003 and set aside
that part of the impugned judgment of the High Court holding that the
empanellment to the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government
E of India amounts to promotion and directing consideration o[Jhe appellant's
case afresh for empanellment. The rest of the judgment is maintained. Civil
Appeal No. 208212003 is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Y.S. Appeals disposed of.