Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the non-appointment of a Rajasthan State Police Service officer to the Indian Police Service due to the State Government's failure to forward a mandatory 'no deterioration certificate' before the appointment notification. The officer, the respondent, had been included in the select list on December 28, 1987, which the Union Public Service Commission approved on February 2, 1988. He was due to retire on May 31, 1988 upon attaining superannuation. His name, along with eight other candidates, was included for allotment from the State quota to the Indian Police Service. The State Government forwarded the select list to the Government of India on April 11, 1988. However, before the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 was issued for the other candidates, the State Government did not send a 'no deterioration certificate' for the respondent, as required under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. This omission meant the respondent's name was excluded from the notification. After his retirement, the State Government wrote a letter on February 21, 1989 stating that the respondent was a 'well deserving' candidate. The respondent filed Original Application No.793/92 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. By order dated August 7, 1995, the Tribunal directed the appellant Union of India to appoint the respondent, without referring to any of the relevant rules. The Tribunal apparently treated the matter on par with general principles of service jurisprudence and was unaware of the Promotion Regulations. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, particularly Regulation 7, which requires the Union Public Service Commission to consider the list prepared by the Committee and approve it unless changes are necessary. Regulation 7(3) provides that the list finally approved by the UPSC shall form the select list. Regulation 9(2) states that it shall not ordinarily be necessary to consult the Commission before appointments, unless there is deterioration in the work of the member or any other ground rendering him unsuitable. The Court also referred to the requirement, made part of the Promotion Regulations as decision No.9, that the State Government must forward a certificate in the prescribed format certifying that subsequent to inclusion in the select list, there has been no deterioration in the officer's work and no lapse in conduct or performance. The Court held that this requirement is mandatory because the Union Government must know the continued quality, integrity, honesty, and efficiency of the officer before appointment. The State Government's failure to send the certificate for the respondent defeated his appointment. The Court found that the Tribunal's order was obviously illegal because it ignored the statutory regulations. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order. However, considering that the respondent was found suitable and approved by the UPSC and the State Government later described him as well deserving, the Court directed that the Union of India may include his name in the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 as a select list candidate and issue him an order of appointment. The respondent would consequently be entitled to all retiral benefits on that basis. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion to Indian Police Service - Mandatory 'No Deterioration Certificate' - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulations 7, 9 - The State Government is required to forward a certificate of no deterioration in service for each selected officer before appointment; this requirement is mandatory to ensure continued quality, integrity, honesty and efficiency. In this case, the State Government did not send the certificate for the respondent before the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988. Held that absence of the certificate precluded the respondent's appointment and the Tribunal's direction ignoring this mandatory requirement was illegal (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Select List Validity and Review - Special Review for Grave Lapse - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 7(3) proviso - A select list ordinarily remains in force until review and revision; the State Government may request a special review to remove a name for grave lapses in conduct or performance. The judgment noted this provision but did not apply it because the issue was non-forwarding of the no deterioration certificate. Held that the select list remained valid, but appointment required compliance with mandatory certification (Paras 1-3). C) Service Law - Remedial Relief - Inclusion in Appointment Notification and Retiral Benefits - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Although the Tribunal's order was set aside as illegal, the Supreme Court granted equitable relief by directing the Union of India to include the respondent's name in the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 and issue an appointment letter. Held that the State Government's lapse caused the respondent to lose the chance for appointment despite being suitable and UPSC-approved, so the respondent was entitled to all retiral benefits on that basis (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in ignoring the mandatory 'no deterioration certificate' requirement under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and whether the respondent is entitled to inclusion in the appointment notification and retiral benefits despite the State Government's failure to forward the certificate.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order as illegal, holding that it ignored the mandatory 'no deterioration certificate' requirement under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. However, the Court directed the Union of India to include the respondent's name in the appointment notification dated October 4, 1988 as a select list candidate and issue an appointment letter, entitling him to all retiral benefits on that basis. No costs.
Law Points
- The requirement of a 'no deterioration certificate' from the State Government under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations
- 1955 is mandatory before appointment to the Indian Police Service
- non-forwarding of such certificate renders the officer ineligible for appointment
- the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore statutory regulations and apply general service jurisprudence
- in appropriate cases
- equitable relief can be granted to remedy the State's lapse.
