Case: Guman Singh Verses State Of Rajasthan And Others Vs.

In both the writ petitions under Art. 32 and the civil appeal, by special leave, common questions that arise for consideration relate to the validity of rr. 28B and 32 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) and the Circular No. F. 1. (6) Apptts. 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. F. 2(24) Apptts.6 dated January 4, 1967. In the two writ petitions the Order No. F. 2(24) Apptts.6 dated January 22, 1970 and in Writ Petition No. 139 of 1970 a further Order of the State Government No. F. 27(24)A6 dated February 21, 1970 are also challenged. 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 stageCivil Appeal No. 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. 57 of 1968. The facts leading up to the Civil Appeal may be stated: The appellant is an Arts Graduate having taken his degree in 1947. He took his Law Degree in the year 1961 having been placed in the First Division. He joined the service of the former Jaipur State as Inspector, Customs and Excise, in 1948. On the formation of the United State of Rajasthan, he was appointed in the, service of the State of Rajasthan as Inspector, Customs and Excise. In 1950 the Rajasthan Administrative Service was constituted for the State of Rajasthan and the Rules governing the conditions of service of the members therein were framed in 1954 by the Rajpramukh under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. Under the Rules the Administrative Service Cadre has three cadres of pay, namely, Ordinary Time Scale, Senior Scale and Selection Grade. The appointment to the service cadre was by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from other subordinate services in the State of Rajasthan. The appointment to the Senior Scale and Selection Grade was by promotion from amongst the members of the service. According to the appellant ff. 27 and 32 of the Rules, as they stood originally provided for promotion to be made only on the basis oft and that) of r. 27 laid down various criteria to be taken into account in the matter of selection of candidates for promotion. It was his further case that r. 28, as it originally stood, laid down the procedure for recruitment by promotion to the service on the basis of. The appellant was appointed in the year 1957 as member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service as a result of the open competitive examination held by the State Public Service Commission under the provisions of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency) Rules, 1956.

Reasoning:
Though Rules 28Band32 provided for selection on the basis of merit gave no indication or guidance as to what are the factors to be taken into account in assessing the merit of an officer. The promotions had also been made by the Committee adopting the principle of awarding marks as directed by the Circular dated August 27, 1966 which had been issued without any authority of lawRegarding the confidential reports of the appellant the plea of the State Government was that the confidential reports of all the officers including that of the appellant were before the Departmental Promotion Committee when it met for making selection in September, 1966andthat there was nothing illegal in the said Committee considering the adverse remarks, if any, made in those reports. The State finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petitionNow coming to the Circular dated August 27, 1966, we find it difficult to agree with the view of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. On the other, we are inclined to agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 79 of 67But ultimately the Division Bench has stated that they themselves have gone through the Cabinet fileandthe notesandsatisfied themselves that the Circular has been issued with the approval of the Government. Therefore it follows that the Circular is an order of the Governmentandnot of the Chief Secretary aloneThe position is clear, as laid down by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthanandanother([1968]1 S. C. R. 111.)The allegations of mala fides made by the appellant against the State have been, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the Division Bench. Mala fides were alleged against the State in amending the Service Rules from time to timeandthe delay in making promotions on the ground that they were all done with a view to help thew of the Chief Ministerandthe other officers who were relations of persons in the good books of the Chief Minister. The same allegations have been repeated in the two writ petitions also. Those allegations have been denied by the State. For the reasons given by the Division Bench, with which we agree, we have no hesitation in rejecting the allegations of mala fides made by the appellant in the appealandin the writ petitions.In the appealandthe writ petitions we hold that rr. 28Band32 are validandthat the circular dated August 27, 1966 is struck down as illegalandinvalid. In the writ petitions there will be only a declaration that the circular dated August 27, 1966 is invalidandthat it is struck down. In other respect both the writ petitions willdismissed. There will be no order as to costsSo far as the appeal is concerned there will be a further order at subject to the observations contained in this judgment a direction will issue to the first respondent, the State to instruct the Departmental Promotion Committee to reviewandreconsider the promotions already given to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in the appeal under the order dated January 4, 1967andto decide their claims afresh only on the basis of the Rules. If the appellant is found eligible for being considered for promotion under the Rules, his claim also will have to be considered along with that of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. No directions are necessary regarding respondent No. 5 as he is already dead. 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, 1967andJanuary 21, 1970. The modifications, if any, will be confirmed only to the appellantandthe respondents Nos. 2 to 4 as the appellant is not challenging the promotions given to other officers under the said two orders. If ultimately respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are found eligible for promotionandthe appellant is not found eligible, the rank given to those respondents will remain the same as is now due to them as per the orders dated January 4, 1967andJanuary 21, 1970. Otherwise, suitable alterations will have to be made.Pending the reviewandreconsideration, ordered as above,andwhich must be done as expeditiously as possible,anddepending upon the result of the same, the promotion already given to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to the senior scale will continue to be in force.