{"id":235737,"date":"2006-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-28T21:47:29","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T16:17:29","slug":"satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Srikrishna<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Srikrishna, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2082 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSATYA NARAIN SHUKLA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. SRIKRISHNA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
SRIKRISHNA, J. :\n<\/p>\n
These two appeals impugned the same judgment of the Division Bench of the
\nAllahabad High Court and are in the nature of cross appeals. Hence, they
\nare being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
These appeals arise out of an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nLucknow, (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal’), which was moved by
\nSatya Narain Shukla, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2082\/2003 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as `the appellant’). The Tribunal declined any relief to the
\nappellant and dismissed his original application. The appellant carried a
\nwrit petition to the High Court and the Division Bench granted him partial
\nrelief. There is an appeal by the appellant in respect of the relief denied
\nto him and there is an appeal by the Union of India in respect of that part
\nof the relief granted to the appellant by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The Facts<\/p>\n
The appellant was selected as an officer of the Indian Administrative
\nService (IAS) and was allotted UP cadre in the year 1967. He held different
\npostings and was promoted to the Super Time Scale in the year 1982. In
\nSeptember 1996, the appellant was considered for empanelment as additional
\nSecretary to the Government of India, but was not empanelled. Several
\nrepresentations were made by him to the authorities against his exclusion
\nfrom the panel of Additional Secretaries to the Government of India on the
\nground that his case had been considered on the basis of wrong appreciation
\nof the character rolls and ACRs, which had not been recorded in accordance
\nwith the All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. In December
\n1977 the appellant’s case was reviewed along with those of several other
\nofficers of the 1967 batch of IAS officer. His representations were not
\nplaced before the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) and the
\nAppointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). He was not, however,
\nempanelled.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant filed Original Application (OA) NO. 38\/1998 before the
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, on 28.1.1998. He alleged that the
\nfailure of the authorities to include him in the panel for Additional
\nSecretaries to the Government of India was illegal on several grounds
\nincluding mala fides on the part of some of the reporting officers. He also
\nsought a direction from the Tribunal to the authorities for streamlining
\nthe system of recording annual confidential reports (ACRs) and to make the
\nprocedure for empanelment objective, fair and transparent. The tribunal
\nmade an interim order on 24.2.1998 directing that further empanelment and
\npostings of 1967 and 1968 batch IAS officers junior to the appellant shall
\nbe subject to the decision of the OA. The appellant also submitted a
\nmemorial to the President for review of his case for empanelment as
\nAdditional Secretary to the Government of India but got no relief.\n<\/p>\n
On 15.09.1998, the appellant sought an amendment for amending the relief
\nclause in his OA and prayed for a direction to reconsider his case for
\nempanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India and also to
\nconsider him for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India.
\nThese amendments were allowed on 23.3.1999. On 1.5.1999, he sent another
\nrepresentation to the Cabinet Secretary to decide his earlier memorial
\naddressed to the President and to give him justice by empanellment as
\nSecretary to the Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
On 12.5.1999, the Tribunal made a further interim order directed to
\nauthorities to complete the appellant’s character roll  (CR) and to take a
\ndecision on his representations dated 31.8.1998 and 6.3.1999 before
\nconsidering him for empanellment to the post of Secretary to the Government
\nof India. On 29.7.1999, the Tribunal made a further direction that the
\nappellant’s representation dated 1.5.1999 should be decided before
\nfinalising the empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of
\nIndia. On 31.8.1999, the Government of India ifnormed the appellant that
\nhis CR had been completed and the ACR for 1993-94, about which he had some
\ngrievance, had been cancelled. The Government of India, however, declined
\nto deal with and take action on his representations on the ground that the
\nmatter was sub judice before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
In September 1999, the SCoS met for empanellment for the post of Secretary
\nto the Government of India and after considering his record the appellant
\nwas not included in the panel.\n<\/p>\n
On 11.1.2000, the appellant made a statutory memorial to the President
\nalleging that he had been wrongly excluded from the panel for the post of
\nSecretary to the Government of India. However, he got no relief therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
Sometime in February 2000, the ACC met and accorded approval to the
\nrecommendations made by the SCoS for the  panel of 1967 batch for the post
\nof secretary to the Government of India. Again on 7.3.2000, the appellant
\nsent another memorial to the President against his exclusion from the panel
\nof the post of Secretary to the Government of India while two other
\nofficers junior to him, and allegedly of lesser merit, had been empanelled.
\nOn 28.4.2000, the Tribunal Dismissed the OA holding that the post of
\nAdditional Secretary to the Government of India or Secretary to the
\nGovernment of India was not a promotional post for an all-India Services’
\nofficer of State cadre, and therefore, most of the contentions urged, which
\nproceeded on the footing that the empanellment to the post of Additional
\nSecretary to the Government of India or the Secretary to the Government of
\nIndia was a promotional post, were irrelevant. The Tribunal also held that
\nonce the appellant was considered for empanellment for the post of
\nSecretary to the Government of India, as he had become eligible for such
\nconsideration, there was no point in directing the respondent authorities
\nto consider his case for empanellment for the post of Additional Secretary
\nto the government of India. The Tribunal took the view that the posts of
\nAdditional Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India were very
\nhigh and responsible posts for which only officers with outstanding entries
\nin ACRs and excellent recommendations should be considered. It was also
\nheld that the ACRs were not the only consideration for empanellment. The
\nTribunal was satisfied that the SCoS had taken into consideration the
\nchange made in the ACR consequent to the direction of the Tribunal and it
\nhad considered the empanellment of the appellant for the post of Secretary
\nto the Government of India after the representation dated 1.5.1999 had been
\ndecided. The challenge made by the appellant to the constitution and
\nvalidity of the Central Staffing Scheme was declined by the Tribunal. The
\nTribunal also dismissed the allegations of mala fides and arbitrariness in
\nnot considering the appellant for empanelemnt and dismissed his petition.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court party allowed the petition and the appellant. It held that
\nall relevant papers including the representations made by the appellant,
\nappreciation letters written in his favour and the memorials made by him
\nagainst downgraded entries and outstanding entries should have been placed
\nby the authorities before the SCoS which should have applied its free and
\nindependent mind to arrive at the best possible conclusion for
\nempanellment. The High Court declined to entertain and enter into the
\ncontention that the Central Staffing Scheme was violative of the provisions
\nof the Constitution of India. But, taking the view that empanellment to the
\npost of the level of Secretary to the Government of India was a promotional
\npost, directed consideration of the appellant’s case afresh for
\nempanellment as Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India
\nby taking into consideration all relevant records as such his confidential
\nreport dossiers, letters of appreciation including memories etc.<\/p>\n
We have heard the appellant in person as well as counsel for the Union of
\nIndia. Despite the somewhat lengthy written arguments filed by the
\nappellant, the points which need consideration are only the following :\n<\/p>\n
I.\tWhether the Central Staffing Scheme is unconstitutional;\n<\/p>\n
II.\tWhether para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme is ultra virus
\nArticles 309 and 312 of the Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n
III.\tWhether the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India
\nand above are promotional posts for IAS officers;\n<\/p>\n
IV.\tWhether the appellant’s non-empanellment to the above post is
\narbitrary and vitiated on account of mala fides, arbitrariness or violative
\nof applicable rules.\n<\/p>\n
I.\tConstitutional validity of the Central Staffing Scheme<\/p>\n
The appellant strongly urged that his case falls under the procedure
\nprescribed in the Central Staffing Scheme, which is wholly unconstitutional
\nand illegal. According to the appellant, the service conditions of IAS
\nofficers are governed by the provisions of the All India Services Act, 1951
\n(AIS Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The appellant contended that it
\nwas not permissible for the Government of India to prescribe any procedure
\ntherefor other than by way of rules framed strictly in accordance with the
\nAIS Act. In his submission, no executive order made in respect of a matter
\nunder Article 309 or 312 could be inconsistent with the statutory rules
\nframed under the AIS Act. The Central Staffing Scheme was neither the
\nprovisions of any legislative enactment nor a supporting legislation framed
\nunder the AIS Act, and, therefore, to the extent of inconsistency with the
\nsaid Act or the Rules framed thereunder, it was illegal. For this
\ncontention, the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in G.K. Rao
\nand Others v. S. Bhattacharya1 and A.B. Krishna<\/a> v. State of Karnataka2.\n<\/p>\n
Article 312 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may by law
\nprovide for the creation of one or more all-India Service common to the
\nUnion and the State, and, subject to the other provisions of that Chapter,
\nregulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons
\nappointed, to any such service. Further, the IAS and the IPS are deemed to
\nbe services created by the Parliament in order to enable the Parliament to
\ndeal with the service conditions of the members of the said services.
\nSection 3 of the AIS Act provides as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service –\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tthe Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments
\nof the States concerned including the State of Jammu and Kashmir and by
\nnotification in the Official Gazette make rules for the regulation of
\nrecruitment, and the condition of service of persons appointed to an All-
\nIndia Service.”\n<\/p>\n
On 17.10.1957, the Central Staffing Scheme was formulated by a resolution
\nof the Government of India and was intended to make “adequate arrangements
\nfor staffing senior administrative posts of and above the rank of Depute
\nSecretary to the Government of India.” This staffing scheme has been
\namended from time to time by resolutions of subsequent dates and the last
\none relevant to us, which was challenged by the appellant, was dated
\n5.1.1996. The contention of the appellant is that when the Central Staffing
\nScheme was formulated on 17.10.1957 it was clearly mentioned therein that
\nit had been done “in consultation with the State Government and other
\nauthorities concerned”. The appellant contended that section 3 of the AIS
\nAct also requires consultation with the States for making of rules. The
\nimpugned Central Staffing Scheme contained in the OM dated 5.1.1996 does
\nnot, in terms, say that it has been issued after consultation with the
\nState Governments. Hence, the contention is that it is ultra virus Section
\n3 of the AIS Act.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the contention raised by the appellant has no merit. Section 3
\nis an enabling power of the Central Government to make Rules for the
\nregulation of recruitment and the conditions of service for persons
\nappointed to the all-India services. This enabling power is hedged in with
\nthe requirement that before doing so there has to be consultation with the
\nState Governments concerned and every rule made in such fashion is to be
\nplaced before both the Houses of the Parliament as required by sub-section
\n(2) thereof. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant
\nthat the Central Staffing Scheme is either a rule or a Regulation within
\nthe meaning of Section 3 of the AIS Act, nor is it possible to accept that
\nthere is no other power available to the executive to deal with the
\nrecruitment and conditions of service otherwise than by a validly made rule
\nunder Section 3 of the AIS Act.\n<\/p>\n
It is not well established that the Central Government’s executive power
\nextends to the same subjects and to the same extent as that of the
\nParliament, as long as it does not infringe any provision of any law made
\nby the Parliament or of the Constitution. In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and
\nOthers v. The State of Punjab3, this Court has observed (vide para 12):\n<\/p>\n
“It may not be possible to frame an exhaustive definition of what executive
\nfunction means and implies. Ordinarily the executive power connotes residue
\nof governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial
\nfunction are taken away.\n<\/p>\n
The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of
\nseparation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the
\ndifferent parts or branches of the Government have been sufficiently
\ndifferentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our
\nConstitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organs or part of the
\nState, to functions that essentially belong to another. The executive
\nindeed can exercise the powers of departmental or subordinate legislation
\nwhen such powers are delegated to it by the legislature.\n<\/p>\n
It can also, when so empowered, exercise judicial functions in a limited
\nway. The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions
\nof the Constitution or of any law. This is clear from the provisions of
\nArticle 154 of the Constitution but, as we have already stated, it does not
\nfollow from this that in order to enable the executive to function there
\nmust be a law already in existence and that the powers of the executive are
\nlimited merely to the carrying out of these laws.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence, we are unable to accept the contention that the Central Staffing
\nScheme is unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
II.\tConstitutional validity of Para 14of the Central Staffing<\/p>\n
The selection of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India
\nhas been carried out in accordance with para 14 of the Central Staffing
\nScheme. Para 14 reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Additional Secretary\/Special Secretary\/Secretary<\/p>\n
14. Selection for inclusion on the panel of officers adjudged suitable for
\nthe appointment to the posts of Additional Secretary or Special
\nSecretary\/Secretary to the Government of India and posts equivalent
\nthereto, will be approved by the ACC on the basis of proposals submitted by
\nthe Cabinet Secretary. In this task, the Cabinet Secretary may be assisted
\nby a Special Committee of Secretaries for drawing up proposals for the
\nconsideration of ACC. As far as possible panels of suitable officers will
\nbe drawn up on an annual basis considering all officers of a particular
\nyear of allotment from one service together as a group. Inclusion in such
\npanels will be through the process of strict selection and evaluation of
\nsuch qualities as merit, competence, leadership and a flair for
\nparticipating in the policy-making process. Posts at these levels at the
\nCentre filled according to the Central Staffing Scheme are not to be
\nconsidered as posts for the betterment of promotion prospects of any
\nservice. The need of the Central Government would be paramount
\nconsideration. While due regard would be given to seniority, filling up of
\nany specific post would be based on merit, competence and the specific
\nsuitability of the officer for a particular vacancy in the Central
\nGovernment.”\n<\/p>\n
Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme makes it clear that empanelment will
\nbe through the process of strict selection and evaluation of “merit,
\ncompetence, leadership and a flair for participating in the policy-making
\nprocess”. It is also made clear therein that posts at these levels in the
\nCentre filled according to the Central Staffing Scheme are not to be
\nconsidered as posts for the betterment of promotion prospects of any
\nservice and that the need of the Central Government would be the paramount
\nconsideration. While due regard would be given to seniority, filling of any
\nspecific post would be based on merit, competence and specific suitability
\nof the officer for a particular vacancy in the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant contended that this provision of the Central staffing Scheme
\nis ultra virus Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution. Amplifying this it
\nis urged by the appellant that several Rules have been framed by the
\nCentral Government in exercise of its statutory powers under AIS Act, 1951,
\ni.e. Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1951; Indian
\nAdministrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955;
\nIndian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; Indian Administrative
\nService (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987; Indian Administrative
\nService (Probation) Rules, 1954; and that these Rules occupy the whole
\nfield of executive discretion, and, therefore, by the doctrine of occupied
\nfield there is no scope left for exercise of executive action outside the
\npurview of these Rules. It is difficult to accept this contention. Each one
\nof these Rules is intended to take care of a specific facet of the IAS. No
\nset of these Rules is exhaustive by itself of all the service conditions
\napplicable to the IAS. It is, therefore incorrect to contended that the
\nfield of possible executive action is completely occupied by the statute or
\nthe statutory rules framed thereunder, deriving force from Article 309 read
\nwith Article 312 of the Constitution of India. We have not been shown any
\nprovisions in these Rules which deal specifically with the subject of the
\nprocedure for selection of officers from the said cadre for the post of
\nAdditional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India. This is a
\nsubject in respect of which the field does not appear to be occupied.
\nConsequently, it was very much open to the executive of resort to executive
\ninstructions by way of an office memo for dealing with this subject. The
\ncontention, therefore, must fail.\n<\/p>\n
The further contention that para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme leaves
\nroom for arbitrary executive action for want of clear cut guidelines has no
\nmerit. The guidelines indicated therein are sufficiently clear enough to
\nsteer clear of the charge of possible arbitrary use.\n<\/p>\n
III.\tWhether the post of Additional secretary to the Government of India
\nand above are promotional posts for IAS Officers;\n<\/p>\n
It is next contended by the appellant that the post of additional
\nSecretary\/Secretary to the Government of India is a promotional post of IAS
\nofficers. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court Debesh
\nChandra Das v. Union of India4. This<\/a> was a case of an IAS officer of the
\nAssam cadre, who was appointed as Special Secretary to the Government of
\nIndia, but later on reverted to Assam services, which resulted in reduction
\nof his pay, and the other option given to him was to continue in Central
\nGovernment service in a lower pay scale. This was considered to be a lower
\nranked post because as a Special Secretary at the Central Government
\nservices he was enjoying higher pay, emoluments and status. Being reverted
\nto the State cadre, according to this Court, amounted to reversion to a
\nlower post accompanied by a stigma, in the peculiar facts of the case,
\nparticularly when the appointment of the appellant as Special Secretary was
\nfor a tenure of 5 years and was terminated before expiry thereof. In these
\ncircumstances, this Court took the view that reverting the appellant-
\nofficer to the State cadre amounted to reversion with stigma, which
\nrequired action in accordance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and,
\nthat not having been done, the action of reversion was held to be illegal.
\nWe notice that the Central Staffing Scheme was not even referred to or
\nconsidered by the judgment. We are, therefore, unable to accept the
\ncontention that this judgment supports the proposition canvassed.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Mysore v.
\nKrishna Murthy5. This was case where members of the same service belonging
\nto the same cadre were treated differently for promotional purposes merely
\non the ground that they came from different streams. Hence, his judgment is
\nof no relevance to us.\n<\/p>\n
Para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme read in the light of the judgment of
\nthis Court in Union of India v. Samar Singh6<\/a> also suggests that appointment
\nto the post of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India is
\nnot a promotion for an IAS officer.\n<\/p>\n
We are, therefore, unable to accept that empanellment of a State cadre
\nofficer for the post of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of
\nIndia is a promotion as contended. If the argument of the appellant is
\naccepted, then an officer of the State cadre who is appointed to the
\nGovernment of India can never be sent back to his State cadre, for the
\nbenefit of promotion once given cannot be withdrawn unless for
\nextraordinary reasons. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with
\nthe appellant’s contention that the post of Additional Secretary\/Secretary
\nto the Government of India is a promotional post for an IAS officer.\n<\/p>\n
IV.\tWhether the appellant’s non-empanellment is vitiated<\/p>\n
The last contention urged by the appellant is that his non-empanellment to
\nthe post of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India was
\narbitrary, vitiated by mala fides and violative of applicable rules. The
\nfirst argument in respect of his contention is that no reasons have been
\ngiven for his non-empanellment or for empanellment of officers junior to
\nhim. Union of India v. Samar Singh<\/a> (supra) was a case of empanellment of an
\nIAS officer under para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme. In that case the
\nrespondent contended that the committee constituted under the provisions of
\nthe Central Staffing Scheme had wrongly and unjustifiably not chosen the
\nrespondent for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India. After
\nreferring to para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme and the observations as
\nto the limited nature of review for selection for appointment indicated in
\nDalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan7<\/a>; Jai Narain Misra (Dr) v.
\nState of Bihar8 and Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India9, this
\nCourt observed in para 11 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“This would show that the Committee, keeping in view the record and
\nexperience including the conceptual and leadership abilities, achievements
\nand potential for general management positions, had recommended 19 IAS
\nofficers for holding the post of Secretaries and 7 IAS officers for holding
\nnon-secretarial post. Merely because the minutes of the Committee do not
\ncontain the reason for non-selection of the respondent does not mean that
\nthere has been no proper consideration of the merits and suitability of the
\nrespondent and as a result the selection is vitiated. From the minutes of
\nthe Special Committee it is evident that in the matter of empanellment of
\noficers the Special Committee has taken into account the criteria that are
\nlaid down for holding such selection in para 14 of the Central Staffing
\nScheme and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said selection is
\nvitiated on account of non-inclusion of the name of the respondent in the
\npanel.”\n<\/p>\n
Another contention urged by the appellant is that the appellant has an
\noutstanding service record, and therefore, his non-empanellment is
\narbitrary. This Court has reiterated in Samar Singh (supra) that merely
\nbecause an officer has an outstanding service record there is no automatic
\nempanellment. After referring to para 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme,
\nthis Court observed (vide para 12) as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Apart from the record there are other matters that have to be considered,
\nnamely, merit, competence, leadership and flair for participating in the
\npolicy-making process and the need of the Central Government which is the
\nparamount consideration. We are unable to hold that since the performance
\nof the respondent after his promotion as Additional Secretary had been
\nfound to be excellent and outstanding, the non-inclusion of his name from
\nthe panel by the Special Committee must lead to the inference that there
\nwas no proper consideration of the merit and suitability of the respondent
\nfor empanellment by the Special Committee.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no merit in the contention that the non-empanellment of the
\nappellant is arbitrary, as urged.\n<\/p>\n
Finally, the appellant also urged that his non-empanellment was the result
\nof mala fides. In support of this contention he has contended that his ACRs
\nwere not written fairly and in fact his excellent record had been spoiled
\nby his superior officer on account of mala fides against him. When we
\nrepeatedly queried him as to what were the mala fides alleged before the
\nTribunal and the High Court, he contended that his ACRs had been left
\nincomplete and his empanellment as Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the
\nGovernment of India was considered on the basis of incomplete ACRs. The
\nappellant had made an application to the Tribunal that his empanellment
\nshould be considered only after the authorities are directed to complete
\nhis CR dossiers. As a matter of fact, the prayer made by the appellant was
\ngranted by the Tribunal and the authorities concerned were directed to
\ncomplete the CR dossiers of the appellant and only thereafter to take a
\ndecision on empanellment. Thus, it is clear that the decision for
\nempanellment for the post of Secretary was not based on incomplete ACRs.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant then contended that some officer were biased against him and
\ntheir assessment was vitiated by mala fides. When we asked him as to who
\nthe said officers were, he named a former Cabinet Secretary, T.S.R.
\nSubramanian, and certain other officers who had written his CR dossiers.
\nThe reasons for mala fides alleged by him are that he had seriously
\ndisagreed with some of the policy decision taken by some of these officers,
\nand therefore, they bore an animus against him. He also contended that the
\nvery officers who had written his downgraded entries, later on were
\ninvolved in some scandals. In our view, neither of these grounds hold any
\nwater. From the records we do not see any strong motive for any of the
\nofficers to bear animus against the appellant to ensure that he was not
\nempanelled. Dissent is the essence of democracy and merely because one
\ndisagrees with another, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the other
\nharbors a grudge against the former.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant also argued that the remarks made in the ACR were not
\ncommunicated to him. It was also urged by the appellant that this Court
\nshould direct the authorities to streamline the whole procedure so that
\neven remarks like `good’ or `very good’ made in ACRs should be made
\ncompulsorily communicable to the officers concerned so that an officer may
\nnot lose his chance of empanellment at a subsequent point of his service.
\nIn our view, it is not our function to issue such directions. It is for the
\nGovernment to consider how to streamline the procedure for selection. We
\ncan only examine if the procedure for selection as adopted by the
\nGovernment is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal or vitiated by
\narbitrariness and mala fides.\n<\/p>\n
After, careful application of mind to all the contentions urged before us,
\nwe are not satisfied that there are any vitiating factors affecting the
\ndecision of the Central Government in not empanelling the appellant for the
\npost of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant in his enthusiasm cited a large number of other judgments
\nboth in his oral and written submissions. Having carefully perused them, we
\nare of the view that they are hardly of any assistance to us a resolution
\nof the dispute before us in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we hold as under :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme including para 14
\nthereto are not unconstitutional;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn view of the express provisions of para 14 of the Central
\nStaffing Scheme, read in the light of the judgment of his Court in Samar
\nSingh (supra), the appointment of State cadre IAS officers for the post of
\nAdditional Secretary\/Secretary to the Government of India does not amount
\nto promotion.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe non-empanellment of the appellant for the post of Additional
\nSecretary\/Secretary to the Government of India was neither arbitrary nor
\ncontrary to the Rules nor vitiated by mala fides as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we allow Civil Appeal No. 2081 of 2003 and set aside that
\npart of the impugned judgment of the High Court holding that the
\nempanellment to the post of Additional Secretary\/Secretary to the
\nGovernment of India amounts to promotion and directing consideration of the
\nappellant’s case afresh for empanellment. The rest of the judgment is
\nmaintained. Civil Appeal No. 2082\/2003 is hereby dismissed. There shall be
\nno order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 Author: Srikrishna Bench: B.N. Srikrishna, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2082 of 2003 PETITIONER: SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2006 BENCH: B.N. SRIKRISHNA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSatya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4767,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\",\"name\":\"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"wordCount":4767,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006","name":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T16:17:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-shukla-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}