ivil Appeal No 3383 of 199 1
From the Judgment and Order dated9111990 of the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur in OA No 129 of 1989
Altar Ahmed Additional Solicitor General Hemant Sharma and CVS Rao for the Appellant
BS Banthia Piyush Mathur G Prakash TC Sharma SK Agnihotri and SK Gambhir for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
What falls for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of clauses 1 2 and 3 of Regu lation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations
1955 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations 
The first respondent and five others who were members of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil  Service had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal  Tribunal  for brevity with a grievance that the selection of officers to the Indian Administrative Service  IAS  on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee in its meet ing held on December 19 1988 and on March 16 1989 was illegal
In its meeting on December 19 1988 the Selection Committee had estimated 7 vacancies in the IAS cadre and was therefore required to prepare a select list of 14 members of the State Civil Service for promotion to the IAS under Regulation 51 of the Regulations
While preparing the list the committee had to consider for inclusion in the said list the cases of members of the State Civil Service in the order of there seniority equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the list
Hence the Committee had to consider the cases of 42 members of the Service
The Committee however considered the cases only of 30 officers graded them and submitted its recommendation to the Union Public Service Commission
The Commission directed the Committee to meet again and grade the remaining 12 officers also
Accordingly the Committee met again on March 779 16 1989 to complete the select list as directed
As a result of this selection appointment orders of 14 officers who were included in the select list were issued on 29th30th March 1989
This was challenged by the applicants before the Tribunal by pointing out that the State had wrongly calculated the number of vacancies as 7 by Counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 51 from December 1 1988 to November 30 1989 instead of from 16th March 1989 to 15th March
If the latter period was considered as the proper period for the purposes of the said Regulation the vacancies would be 11 and the select list of 22 officers would have to be prepared
That will extend the zone of consideration in all to 66 officers
Since 18 of the 66 officers were ineligible the zone of consideration will extend to the 84th officer in the seniority list
On behalf of the State Government it was contended that since the meeting was first held on 19th December
1988 the period of 12 months under the said Regulation will have to be calcu lated from December 1 1988 to November 30 1989 according to the previous practice of the State Government which was that since the Committee meets in the second fortnight of December the period was to be calculated from the 1st December of that year
We agree with the Tribunal that neither the practice adopted by the State Government nor the interpretation placed by it on Regulation 51 is proper
The relevant portion of Regulation 51 reads as follows 5
Preparation of a list of suitable officers 1  
The number of members of the State Civil Service included in the list shall not be more than twice he number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of twelve months commencing from the date of preparation of the list
in the posts available for them    Emphasis supplied  We are not concerned with the rest of the provision of the said regulation for the purposes of this point
The wording of the regulation is very clear
It says commencing from the date of the preparation of the list
In the
present case admittedly the list which was prepared by the Selection Committee on 1912
1988 was not according to Regulation 51 read with Regulation 52
Regulation 52 requires that the cases of members of the State Civil Serv ice which are required to be considered for preparation of the select list have to be in number equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the select list
As pointed out earlier the Selection Committee had on the basis of its estimate of vacancies on 19th December 1988 considered the 780 cases of only 30 officers when it was required to consider the cases of 42 officers
It is for this reason that the Union Public Service Commission had returned its recommenda tion and asked the Selection Committee to consider the cases of 12 more officers
Hence the preparation  of the select list was not complete in December 1988 and the Commit tee was required to convene a fresh meeting on March 16 1989 on which date alone it ican be said to have prepared the select list as required under Regualtion 51
Since the select list as required by Regulation 51 was for the first time prepared on March 16 1989 the period of 12 months under Regulation 51 had to be counted from that date
The Tribunal had therefore rightly held that the span of 12 months would begin from March 16 1989 and end on March 15 1990
There is further no dispute that during the period of 12 months from 16th March 1989 to 15th March 1990 the esti mated vacancies were 11 and therefore the Tribunal s direction to prepare a select list of 22 officers by consid ering the cases in all of 66 officers and therefore ex tending the zone to the 84th officer in theseniority list according to the order of seniority 18 officers out of 66 being ineligible is both proper and valid
A contention was then advanced before us on behalf of the appellant that the select list lapses when a meeting of the Selection Committee to prepare a fresh select list is held
Hence no appointment could be made from the earlier select list on and after the date of the meeting of the next Selection Committee
There is nothing on record as to wheth er any Selection Committee met after March 16 19891n fact the Tribunal s direction to constitute a Review Committee to consider the cases of the applicants before it and any other officers who were in the consideration zone has not yet been implemented and the Selection Committee has yet to meet to prepare the list of members of the State Civil Service eligible to be placed in the select list as on March 16 1989
There is therefore no question of the lapse of the list which is yet to be prepared
A meeting of the Selection Committee to prepare the list for future years cannot be held unless the meeting as directed by the Tribunal is first held and the select list finalised
The last contention was that under Regulation 53 there is a bar on the Selection Committee taking into con sideration the cases of the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets
The argument was that some of the officers had attained the age of 54 years 781 on 1st January 1989 and therefore would be ineligible for consideration to be placed in the select list
According to us this contention is inconsistent with the provisions of Regulation 53 of the Regulations
Regulation 53 reads as follows 53 The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil Serv ice who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets Emphasis ours The provision of Regulation 53 is clear
It speaks of the first day of January of the year in which the Selection Committee  meets
It is unlike the language of Regulation 51 which as pointed
out earlier speaks of the date of the preparation of the list
In the present case admitted ly the Committee first met on 19th December 1988
There fore for the purpose of Regulation53 it iv that date which is relevant and if that is so it is only those mem bers of the State Civil Service who will be ineligible who had attained the age of 54 years on 1st January 1988
The Tribunal has also clarified this while giving the direction for a Review Selection Committee
We make it clear that for the purposes of the Review Selection Committee to be convened as directed by the Tribu nal the zone of consideration will be as if the meeting was held on March 16 1989
The actual number of vacancies which will have to be considered has already been indicated in our judgment
In the circumstances of the case the appeal fails and is dismissed
In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending for some time we direct that the Review Departmental Promotion Corn  mitteeSelection Committee should meet and prepare the select list within two months from the day of the receipt of the writ of this Court
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeal dis missed


Summary:
On a complaint made by the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent Cooperative Housing Society the third respond ent Registrar Cooperative Societies referred the dispute relating to irregularities in the purchase of building material for construction of flats for members of society by the past Managing Committee of which the appellant was the President at the relevant time to arbitration
The first respondent Arbitrator gave his ex parte award on the failure of the appellant and another person to file their reply to the claim of the claimant society and directed the appellant and the other person to pay the society certain sum with interest thereon
The appellant challenged the award before second re spondent the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal which dismissed the same holding that the Arbitrator s act of proceeding ex parte was justified and that the appeal had no merit
The appellant s writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court
In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appel lant it was contended that it was Sec
59 dealing with surchage which was applicable to the instant case and not Section 60 which pertained to settlement of disputes by arbitration since the dispute in question was one which could not be referred to arbitration in terms of Section 60 of the Act
On behalf of the contesting respondents it was submitted that it was Section 60 which was applicable and not Section 59
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 11 Sub Section 1 of Section 60 of the Delhi Co operative 783 Societies Act 1972 indicates the true scope of the Section 60 while sub section 2 is merely illustrative and not exhaustive
Clause c of sub section 1 expressly provides that if any dispute touching the constitutionmanagement or the business of the cooperative society arises between the society or its committee and any past committee
any offi cer agent or employee or any past officer of the society the dispute should be referred to the arbitration
787H 788A B D 12 In the instant case the dispute viz irregulari ties in the purchase of building material for construction of flats for the members of the Society by the previous Managing Committee touches the management of the Society and fails within the ambit of Section 60 of the Act
The third respondent Registrar Cooperative Societies was therefore right in referring the dispute to arbitration
789D F Pentakota Srirakulu vs The Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd   followed
Change Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd and Anr
Ashok Ohri AIR 1976 63 Delhi 239 disapproved