- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nepal Singh Tanwar, Etc. v. Union Of India Uoi And Ors. Etc.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the year 1991-92 selected eight officers for induction into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against six existing and two anticipated vacancies. The first six candidates were appointed against the six vacancies; the seventh candidate was appointed on 16 February 1992 when a vacancy arose; and the appellant, Nepal Singh Tanwar, was appointed on 12 August 1992 against another subsequent vacancy.
The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the appellant’s appointment, holding that the select list had lapsed after one year because a fresh list had not been drawn up under Regulation 5. Relying on the Tribunal’s decision, the State resisted the appellant’s claim. These civil appeals—arising out of Special Leave Petitions—were heard by the Supreme Court and disposed of by A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Regulations 5 and 7(4) governing IAS selections, the 1991-92 select list continued to be operative after one year when the next DPC meeting was cancelled.
- Whether the appellant’s appointment on 12 August 1992, made from that continuing list, was valid or void.
- What is the correct interpretation of this Court’s earlier ruling in Syed Khalid Rizvi in light of the later clarification in H.R. Kasturirangan.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Regulation 7(4) expressly provides that a select list remains in force until a new list is prepared and approved; therefore the 1991-92 list was still valid on 12 August 1992.
- The DPC scheduled for 26 March 1992 was postponed for four documented reasons—cadre rationalisation concerns, austerity measures announced in the State Assembly, a 10 % cut imposed by the Union Government, and an impending triennial cadre review—constituting “satisfactory reasons” for not preparing a fresh list.
Respondents / Tribunal’s Reasoning
- Preparation of a fresh select list each year is mandatory under Regulation 5 as interpreted in Syed Khalid Rizvi; once a year lapsed, the earlier list expired and could not be used to fill vacancies.
- The appellant’s appointment after the alleged expiry of the list was therefore illegal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, JT 1992 (Suppl.) SC 169 | Held that preparation of an annual select list under Regulation 5 is mandatory. | The Tribunal relied on this case to invalidate the appellant’s appointment; the Supreme Court distinguished it by referring to the later clarification in Kasturirangan. |
| H.R. Kasturirangan v. Union of India, C.A. No. 3891-94/94, order dated 28-7-1993 | Clarified that the duty to prepare an annual list is “ordinarily” mandatory and can be excused where the State gives satisfactory reasons. | The Court applied this clarification to hold that the four reasons for postponing the 26-3-1992 DPC meeting were satisfactory, allowing the previous list to remain operative under Regulation 7(4). |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by examining Regulation 7(4), which states that an existing select list continues until a revised list is approved. Because the DPC meeting slated for 26 March 1992 was cancelled, no new list came into existence; consequently, the 1991-92 list remained valid.
Addressing the Tribunal’s reliance on Syed Khalid Rizvi, the Court noted that Rizvi had subsequently been clarified in H.R. Kasturirangan, which emphasised that the annual preparation of a select list is “ordinarily” mandatory. A delay is permissible if the State offers a satisfactory explanation. The four reasons given for postponement—cadre size concerns, legislative austerity commitments, a Union-imposed 10 % cut, and an impending cadre review—were deemed satisfactory.
Because these reasons justified the postponement, Regulation 7(4) operated to keep the earlier list alive. Therefore, the appellant’s appointment on 12 August 1992 was consistent with the governing regulations, and the Tribunal’s contrary conclusion was legally erroneous.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED; APPOINTMENT OF NEPAL SINGH TANWAR UPHELD. The Supreme Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order and confirmed that the appellant’s appointment dated 12 August 1992 was valid. Related appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 16772-74 & 16775-77/1996) were also allowed on the same reasoning. No costs were awarded.
The decision reaffirms that while Regulation 5 generally requires an annual select list, Regulation 7(4) permits the previous list to continue when the State has satisfactory reasons for delay. The ruling clarifies the interplay between earlier Supreme Court precedents, but does not announce a new doctrine beyond interpreting existing regulations.
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I.
1. In Civil Appeal Nos. 16769-16771/96 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8324-26/96).
2. Special leave granted.
3. Heard Counsel for the Appellant-Nepal Singh Tanwar. The DPC for the year 1991-92 selected 8 candidates for appointment to the All India Services against six vacancies and two anticipated vacancies. The first six persons were appointed against the six vacancies and the seventh was appointed on 16.2.1992 against the vacancy which fell a little later and the Appellant was appointed on 12.8.1992 against yet another vacancy which became available by then. The grievance is that the Appellant could not have been appointed as by then the list was exhausted. However, this grievance does not appear to be correct for the reason that under the relevant Regulation 7(4) the select list was to continue until its review and revision effected under Regulation 5(4) is approved under Sub-Regulation (1) or as the case may be, finally approved under Sub-Regulation (2). In the instant case it appears that DPC meeting was called on 26.3.1992 for preparing the next list but that meeting was cancelled. The reasons for cancellation have been set out in paragraph 2 of the written statement of Rajan Kumar Gupta. Four reasons have been assigned for postponement of the meeting, namely, (1) that the State of Haryana felt that the authorised cadre of the IAS was too large and needed to be rationalised because even the authorised cadre of the neighbouring State of Punjab which was bigger in size and population than the State of Haryana had an authorised category which was smaller than that of the State of Haryana; (2) as an austerity measure, the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana had indicated on the floor of the Haryana Legislative Assembly in March, 1992 that the IAS cadre strength would be reduced; (3) the Government of India had imposed a cut of 10 percent on senior level posts of IAS in the Centre; and (4) The Triennial Cadre Review of IAS was due in 1992 itself. For these four reasons the meeting of the DPC scheduled on 26.3.1992 was postponed. As a result of this postponement the select list continued and when the vacancy arose it was filled in by the appointment of the Appellant on 12.8.1992.
4. The Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that it was mandatory under the rules to prepare the select list within one year and since in the instant case the DPC had failed to prepare the select list, the select list bearing the name of the Appellant had lapsed and it was not open to the authorities to appoint the Appellant with effect from 12.8.1992. In support of this contention, strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors., etc. JT 1992 (Suppl.) SC 169, wherein it was held that it was mandatory to meet and prepare a select list for the succeeding year under Regulation 5 and failure to do so will not permit the authorities to appoint from the earlier list treating it to be in operation As pointed out earlier, Regulation 7(4) In terms states that until the new list s-prepared the previous list will continue The Union Public Service Commission in its communication dated 13,9.1996 has stated in regard to the appointment of the Appellant that "so long as the next Selection Committee does not meet, the previous select list continued to be in force It would, therefore, appear that under Regulation 7(4) read with Regulation 5 us less the select list is prepared for the succeeding year the previous select discontinues. In Rizvi's case it is no doubt true that this Court stated that under Regulation 5 preparation of the select list every year is mandatory. However, the-decision was considered in C. A. No 3891-94/94 (H. R. Kasturirangan v. Union of India) and it was clarified by the order dated 28.7.1993 that the observations had to be read in the light of the subsequent observation in that very judgment wherein it was stated that dereliction of the statutory duty must be satisfactory, accounted for by the State Government which meant that if the State Government was in a position to satisfactorily account for its failure to prepare a select list as required by Regulation 5 that would be a valid ground for its failure to prepare the select list for the subsequent years. The Regulation uses the expression 'ordinarily which means that ordinarily it is the duly of the State Government to prepare the select list unless there are satisfactory reasons to account for its failure to do so If it is able to show that it failed to prepare the select list on account of certain reasons and if those reasons are found to be satisfactory by the Court its failure to prepare the select list would be excused In the instant case, although the meeting was scheduled on 26.3.1992 it was postponed and a new select list was not prepared as required by Regulation 5 for four reasons which we have set out hereinbefore. We are of the opinion that these four reasons gave a satisfactory explanation for the failure to prepare the select list required by Regulation 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appointment of the Appellant on 12.8.1992 on the premise that the select list continued to be in operation was not violative of Regulation 5 of the Regulations.
5. The Tribunal did not have the benefit of the clarification contained in the order of 28.7.1993 in the case of Kasturirangan (supra). That is the reason why it proceeded on the premise that the preparation of the select list under Regulation 5 was mandatory and on the expiry of one year the previous select list lapsed. It did not consider the impact of Regulation 7(4) because of this Court's decision in Rizvi's case which was construed to mean that Regulation 5 was mandatory and had to be complied with at all costs. It has rightly explained in Kasturirangan's case that the word 'ordinarily' in Regulation 5 means that the State Government must prepare the select list every year and ordinarily that should be the practice but if there are good reasons for not doing so and the Court is satisfied that there were valid reasons for not preparing the select list for the subsequent years, Regulation 7(4) would come into operation and the previous list would continue to remain in force. We therefore, think that the Tribunal was wrong because it interpreted Rizvi's case to mean that Regulation 5 was absolute and mandatory in terms and failure to prepare the list was fatal. That is not the purport of Regulation 5 nor is it the purport of the decision of this Court in Rizvi's case as explained in Kasturirangan's case. That being so, the Tribunal was in error in quashing the appointment of the Appellant.
6. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the Appellant Nepal Singh Tanwar and hold that his appointment on 12.8.1992 was perfectly in order. There will be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal Nos. 16772-74 & 16775-77/1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15824-26/1996 and 15234-36/1996)
7. Special leave granted.
8. In the view that we have taken hereinbefore these appeals are also allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside with no order as to costs.
9. I. A. Nos. 7-9 do not survive and shall stand disposed of.
Alert