Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 295 (KER)

Satheesh Kumar v. Union of India

1999-07-12

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR, P.A.MOHAMMAD

body1999
Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The Ext. P8 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is under challenge before us. The petitioners filed O. A. No. 369 of 1999 before the Tribunal praying for the various reliefs set out in the application; but we are mainly concerned with the relief sought in prayer (iv) which is reproduced hereunder: "declare that the permanent vacancies of the Tradesmen "A' in the VSSC Replace, Vattiyoorkavu are liable to be filled only with permanent hands from the UPSC and the decision, if any, taken and orders, if any, passed pursuant thereto to fill the vacancies with Employment Exchange hands is illegal." The petitioners are skilled Contract Labourers working in the V.S.S.C. under 2nd respondent and they have got employment through Employment Exchange. The contesting respondents before the Tribunal were (1) Union of India represented by the Secretary, Department of Space, New Delhi and (2) The Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum who are the respondents 1 and 2 in this Writ Petition. All the reliefs claimed in the application had been rejected by the Tribunal. However, counsel for the petitioners emphatically submits that no adjudication had been made on the relief quoted above. 2. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 a statement has been filed opposing the claims of the petitioners. The Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the Department of Space/Indian Space Research Organisation is competent to make its own rules regarding recruitment and promotion and they have been exempted from the purview of the Union Public Service Commission. Art.77 of the Constitution deals with the conduct of business of the Government of India. Clause (1) provides that all executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. Clause (2) inter alia states that orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the President. Clause (3) provides further that the President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business. Art.77 thus applies to all executive action of the Government of India, including constitutional or statutory functions and also quasi-judicial powers. Clause (3) provides further that the President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business. Art.77 thus applies to all executive action of the Government of India, including constitutional or statutory functions and also quasi-judicial powers. The power to make rules of business under this clause may be traced from Art.53(1) which says that the executive power of the Union shall be exercised by the President directly or through the Officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. 3. Now let us turn to the claim of exemption from consultation with Union Public Service Commission. Clause (3) of Art.320 provides that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted on: (a) all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and (b) the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers. However, the above provision is subject to a proviso contained therein which runs thus: "Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted." This proviso confers power on the President and the Governor to make regulations specifying the matters in which it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted. 4. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 is that the Department of Space had been specifically exempted from consultation with the Union Public Service Commission by virtue of the notification issued by the President. In order to substantiate this contention the copy of the notification dated 14th November, 1974 issued by the President is brought to our notice, which is produced hereunder: "G.S.R.465(E). In order to substantiate this contention the copy of the notification dated 14th November, 1974 issued by the President is brought to our notice, which is produced hereunder: "G.S.R.465(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause (3) of Art.320 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958, namely 1. (1) These Regulations may be called the Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Amendment Regulations, 1974. (2) They shall come in to force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Schedule to the Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958, item 18 shall be re-numbered as item 19 thereof and before the item as so renumbered the following item shall be inserted, namely - "(18) All technical and administrative posts in or under- (a) the Department of Space; (b) The Space Commission, constituted by the resolution of the Government of India in the Department of Cabinet Affairs, No. 83/1/172-CF dated the Ist June 1972." In view of the above notification, the contention of the counsel for the respondents I to 5 has to be upheld. In view of what is said above, the Original Petition is dismissed.