Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 504 (GAU)

Lunkhel Khaijamang Haokip v. State of Manipur

2005-07-06

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition is arising out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 35 of 2002. The reliefs sought for in the present writ petition are: 1. For setting aside the judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 35/02; 2. To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, specially Respondent No. 2 to furnish integrity certificate of the Petitioner pursuant to the notification No. 1-14011/14/2000-IPS dated 29.10.2001 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs; and 3. To direct the Respondent, specially Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to issue appropriate orders promoting the Petitioner in IPS Cadre under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 2. Whether the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition could be granted or not is solely based on the decision of what would be the date of approval of the Select List of the State Police Officers (i.e. 2000 Select List containing the names of the present Petitioner and one Shri N. Ngaraipam prepared in compliance with the Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955) by the Union Public Service Commission under Regulation 7 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. As the Regulation 7 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 is required to be looked into and discussed in the present writ petition; Regulation 7 is quoted in its entirety: 7. Select List: (1) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with: a) The documents received from the State Government under Regulation 6; (b) The observations of the Central Government and unless it consider any change necessary, approve the list. [(2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in list received from the State Government, the Commission shall inform the State Government and the Central Government of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comment, if any, of the State Government and the Central Government, may approve the list finally with such modification, if any, as may, in its opinion, be just and proper] (3) The list as finally approved by the Commission shall from the Select List of the members of the State Police Service. (4) The Select List shall remain in force till the 31st day of December of the year in which the meeting of the selection committee was held with a view to prepare the list under Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 or upto to sixty days from the date of approval of the Select List by the Commission under Sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, finally approved under Sub-regulation (2) whichever is later: Provided that where the State Government has forwarded the proposal to declare a provisionally included officer in the Select List as 'unconditional' to the Commission during the period when the select list was in force, the Commission shall decide the matter within a period of ninety days or before the date of meeting of the next Selection Committee, whichever is earlier and if the commission declares the inclusion of the provisionally included officer in the Select List as unconditional and final, the appointment of the concerned officer shall be considered by the Central Government under Regulation 9 and such appointment shall not be invalid merely for the reason that it was made after the select list ceased to be in force: Provided further that in the event of any new service or service being formed by enlarging the existing State Police Service or otherwise being approved by the Central Government as the State Police Service under Clause (i) of Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 2, Select List in force at the time of such approved shall continue to be in force until a new list prepared under Regulation 5 in respect of the members of the new State Police Service, is approved under Sub-regulation (1), or as the case may be, finally approved under Sub-regulation (2). 3. Factual panorama in nutshell is as follows: The Petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment in the Manipur Police Service (for short the MPS) in the year, 1975 on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short the MPSC) vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 3/44/74-S dated 25.3.1975. After serving about 23 years as MPS Officer (direct recruit) under the Government of Manipur, he was appointed as a member of the Manipur Police Service (selection grade) on the recommendation of the duly constituted selection committee vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 3/2/87-MPS (DP) dated 23.3.1998. After serving about 23 years as MPS Officer (direct recruit) under the Government of Manipur, he was appointed as a member of the Manipur Police Service (selection grade) on the recommendation of the duly constituted selection committee vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 3/2/87-MPS (DP) dated 23.3.1998. The Petitioner had been posted and served in different capacities as Superintendent of Police (Crime), Government of Manipur, Nodal Officer, CBI, New Delhi, Superintendent of Police of different districts of Manipur, Commandant of different Manipur Rifles Battalions and Superintendent of Police, CID, Government of Manipur in his long career as MPS officer. At the time of filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner was the 4th senior-most police officer in Manipur Police Service and names of the said four senior-most Police Officers are: 1) Shri A. Rajendro Singh, 2) Shri Tualchinkham Samte, 3) Shri N. Ngaraipam and the Petitioner himself. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that at present the Petitioner is the second senior-most MPS Officer in the Manipur Police Service as Shri Tualchinkham Samte and Shri N. Ngaraipam had already retired on superannuation. 4. There are six vacancies in the IPS of joint Manipur-Tripura Cadre. Out of the said six vacancies, two vacancies are to be filled up as quota for Manipur as per the Government letter No. 3.3.98-IPS/DP dated 04.05.1998. For filling up the said two vacancies in the IPS of joint cadre of Manipur, Tripura (for short MT Cadre), the Government of Manipur in compliance with the provisions of Regulation 5 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 sent names of six senior-most MPS Officers i.e. 1) Shri A. Rajendro Singh (1975 batch), 2) Shri Tualchinkham Samte (1975 batch), 3) Shri N. Ngaraipam (1975 batch), 4) Shri L.K. Haokip (Petitioner) (1975 batch), 5) Shri M. Mani Singh (1981 batch) and Shri M. Manglemjao Singh (1983 batch). 5. The Petitioner along with 5(five) others were considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 20.12.2000 for appointment by promotion to the said two vacancies in the IPS of MT Cadre under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 5. The Petitioner along with 5(five) others were considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 20.12.2000 for appointment by promotion to the said two vacancies in the IPS of MT Cadre under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. Admittedly, the said Selection Committee recommended the names of the Petitioner and one Shri N. Ngaraipam to be included in the Select List for the year, 2000 for filling up the said two substantive vacancies in the Manipur segment of the IPS of joint cadre (MT Cadre). 6. The Select List prepared by the Selection Committee is, required to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission in compliance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 which had been quoted above in its entirety. About ten months after the meeting of the Selection Committee which was held on 20.12.2000, the notification being No. 1-14011/14/2000-IPS/1 New Delhi, 29th October, 2001 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs that Union Public Service Commission in compliance with the provisions of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 had approved the Select List for the year, 2000 containing the names of the Petitioner and another. Approval of the select list by the Union Public Service Commission under the said notification dated 29.10.2001, so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is conditional/provisional subject to the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and grant of integrity certificate by the State Government i.e. Government of Manipur. The said notification of the Government of India dated 29.10.2001 reads as follows: No. 1-14011/14/2000-IPS.I Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya New Delhi, the 29th Oct. 2001. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the provisions contained in Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Union Public Service Commission has approved the 2000 Select List containing the names of the following members of the State Police Service of Manipur, prepared by the selection committee in its meeting held on 20.12.2000, forwards filling up 2 substantive vacancies in the Manipur segment of the Joint Manipur-Tripura IPS Cadre during 2000. SI. No. Name (S/Shri) Date of Birth 1. N. Ngaripam(ST) 05.03.47 2. L.K. Haokip (ST) 01.03.53 The name at SI. SI. No. Name (S/Shri) Date of Birth 1. N. Ngaripam(ST) 05.03.47 2. L.K. Haokip (ST) 01.03.53 The name at SI. No. 1 has been included in the list provisionally subject to clearance in the criminal case pending against him before the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge Manipur East. The name at SI. No. 2 has been included in the list provisionally subject to clearance in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and grant of integrity certificate by the State Government. Sd/- (S.P. Verma) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tele No. 3011527 New Delhi 29.10.2001 Admittedly the said notification was received by the Government of Manipur, only on 21.11.2001 and for acknowledgement of the same, the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur, Mr. Rakesh put his initial dated 21.11.2001 on the said notification. 7. The Government of Manipur as late as 13.12.2001 had furnished a copy of the said notification dated 29.10.2001 to the Petitioner under letter of the under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur being No. 3/3/98- IPS/DP (Pt), Imphal the 13.12.2001 which reads as follows: No. 3/3/98-IPS/DP (Pt) Govt. of Manipur Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) Imphal, the 13th December, 2001. To, 1. Shri N. Ngaraipam, MPS Commandant, Home Guards, Manipur. 2. Shri L.K. Haokip, MPS Supdt. of Police/CID (CB), Manipur. Subject: Status position in the Select List of 2000. Sir, I am directed to sent herewith a copy of Notification No. 1-1/14011/14/2000-IPS.I dated 29.11.2001 from Shri S.P. Verma, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affaris, New Delhi regarding the status position in the Select List, 2000 of the following MPS Officers for information: 1. Shri N. Ngaraipam (ST), MPS 2. Shri L.K. Haokip (ST) MPS. Encl: As above. Your faithfully, Sd/- Dhananjoy Singh, Under Secretary, Government of Manipur. Undisputedly, the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner mentioned in the said notification dated 29.10.2001 had been closed by the Government of Manipur. Thereafter the Government of Manipur under the letter of the Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur being No. 4/59/76-MPS/DP (Pt), Imphal, 22.12.2001 had informed the Secretary to the Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi that the Government of Manipur had closed the said departmental inquiry/disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and for taking up necessary follow up action. Thereafter the Government of Manipur under the letter of the Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur being No. 4/59/76-MPS/DP (Pt), Imphal, 22.12.2001 had informed the Secretary to the Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi that the Government of Manipur had closed the said departmental inquiry/disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and for taking up necessary follow up action. The said letter of the Government of Manipur dated 22.12.2001 reads as follows: No. 4/59/76-MPS/DP (Pt) Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform (Personnel Division) Imphal, the 22.12.2001 To, The Secretary to the Union Public Service Commission Dholpur House New Delhi. Subject: Closing of Departmental Case against Shri L.K. Haokip, MPS (IPS Select List) Attention: Shri P. Bharat Singh, Comm. DP Camp: New Delhi. Sir, I am directed to say that the Departmental Case pending against Shri L.K. Haokip, MPS, IPS Select List has been decided to close on receipt of the necessary Inquiry Report from the Inquiring Authority. Yours faithfully, (S. Buddhachandra Singh) Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur In response to the said communication of the Government of Manipur under the said letter dated 22.12.2001, the Union Public Service Commission vide their letter No. 7/12(1)/2000 AIS dated 8.1.2002 invited the attention of the State Government to Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 and stated that in view of the above position the Select List of 2000 is no longer valid inasmuch as the Select List expired on 15.12.2001 as the Select List was approved by the Union Public Service Commission on 15.10.2001 and as such, it is not possible to make the name of the Petitioner as unconditional in the Select List of 2000. Being aggrieved the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by filing O. A. No. 38/2002 for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 specially Respondent No. 2 to furnish integrity certificate of the Petitioner in pursuance of the said notification dated 29.11.2001 and also for further direction to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to issue appropriate orders promoting the Petitioner in the IPS of the MT Cadre under the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 8. 1 to 3 specially Respondent No. 2 to furnish integrity certificate of the Petitioner in pursuance of the said notification dated 29.11.2001 and also for further direction to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to issue appropriate orders promoting the Petitioner in the IPS of the MT Cadre under the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 8. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, without giving a clear-cut finding regarding the date of approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission, had made a finding that the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer of the Disciplinary Proceedings was completed on 20.11.2001 and the said report was forwarded by the Director, Vigilance to the Disciplinary Authority only on 22.12.2001 after the validity period of Select List on 13.12.2001 and no illegality is discernible in the action of the Respondents by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2001 and thereby dismissing the OA No. 30/02 filed by the Petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. 9. In the present writ petition, the only main thrust of the Petitioner is that the approval of the Union Public Service Commission on the Select List prepared by the Selection Committee is to be deemed to have been given only on 29.10.2001 when the Government issued the said notification dated 29.10.2001 inviting approval of the Select List and not before that and accordingly, 60 (sixty) days is to be counted from 29.10.2001 for the purpose of determining the validity of the Select List under Regulation 7(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 or in the alternative since the information of the approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission was given by the State Government to the Petitioner under the said letter of the Government of Manipur dated 13.12.2001, the validity of Select List for sixty days contemplated in Regulation 7(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, is to be counted w.e.f. 13.12.2001 so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 10. 10. On bare perusal of the said notification dated 29.10.2001, it is crystal clear that the date of approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission (Commission) is not mentioned but the notification clearly speaks that in exercise of the provisions contained in Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, the Union Public Service Commission has approved the 2000 Select List containing the names of the Petitioner and another. The said notification dated 29.10.2001 is the first notification for informing all concerned i.e. the Government of India, the Government of Manipur and others that the said Select List i.e. 2000 Select List containing the names of the Petitioner and another had been approved by the Union Public Service Commission. And the said notification dated 29.10.2001 was made known to the Petitioner only on 15.12.2001 under the said letter of the Government of Manipur dated 13.12.2001 to the Petitioner. 11. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 4, i.e. Union Public Service Commission in the present writ petition, it has been mentioned that the approval of the Commission to the recommendation of the Selection Committee made on 20.12.2000 was conveyed to the Government of India and Government of Manipur vide Commission's letter dated 15.10.2001, thus as per the provision of Regulation 7(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, the Select List for the year, 2000 lapsed after sixty days from 15.10.2001 i.e. on 13.12.2001. But a copy of the said letter of the Commission dated 15.10.2001 was neither annexed in their affidavit-in-opposition nor a copy of it was produced before this Court at the time of hearing of the present writ petition. Surprisingly in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 nothing is mentioned that the Commission under its letter dated 15.10.2001 had informed the State Government that the Commission had conveyed its approval to the Select List prepared by the Selection Committee made on 20.12.2000. Such being the situation, a serious doubt is created as to whether or not the Commission under its letter-dated 15.10.2001 had conveyed approval to the said Select List of 2000 containing the names of the Petitioner and another to the Government of India and Government of Manipur. Such being the situation, a serious doubt is created as to whether or not the Commission under its letter-dated 15.10.2001 had conveyed approval to the said Select List of 2000 containing the names of the Petitioner and another to the Government of India and Government of Manipur. Be that as it may, the said letter of the Commission dated 15.10.2001 is only an interdepartmental correspondence, copy of which was not furnished to the Petitioner, thus, it cannot be acted upon for denying the rights accrued to the Petitioner on his inclusion in the 2000 Select List. 12. For determining what would be the date of approval of the Select List i.e. Select List of 200 containing the name of the Petitioner and another by the Union Public Service Commission we can conveniently and usefully rely on the following decisions of the Apex Court: (A) State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev reported in AIR 1961 SC 493 , wherein it has been discussed that what would be the effective date of the order of the Government on the report of the Public Service Commission tendered under Article 320(3)(C) of the Constitution. In that case the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) held that even if the council of ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the Respondent that would not prevent the council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion latter on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Raj Pramukh in the form of the advise and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the Respondent. Relying on this case, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that date of approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission would be 29.10.2001 on which by issuing the notification approval of the Union Public Service Commission was made known to all the concerned, i.e. the Petitioner, Government of India and Government of Manipur. (B) By following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev (supra) the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Bachhittar Shah v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395 held that the effective date of the order would be the date on which the same was communicated to the person concerned. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395 held that the effective date of the order would be the date on which the same was communicated to the person concerned. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1500 it has been discussed that what would be the meaning of "date" of award for the purpose of Section 18(2)proviso (b), which reads as: (b) Any other case within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 Sub-section (2), or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire The Apex Court held that date of award means either actual communication or constructive communication of the said order (award) to the party concerned. Relevant portion of para 11 of the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (supra) is quoted hereunder: 11. ... It was held that in a case where an order was not passed in the presence of the parties or after notice to them of the date when the order would be passed the expression "within thirty days after the making of the order" used in the said Sections means within thirty days after the date on which the communication of the order reached the parties affected by it. These decisions show that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. (C) In Madan Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 119 it has been discussed that what would be the date of order for settlement officer under Section 11(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for the purpose of calculating the limitation period of three months for filing appeal. The Apex Court in that case held that the date of order would be the date on which it became aware of it to the person concerned. Para 8 of the SCC in Madan Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder: 8. The Apex Court in that case held that the date of order would be the date on which it became aware of it to the person concerned. Para 8 of the SCC in Madan Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder: 8. The Act we are concerned with does not state what would happen if the Forest Settlement Officer made an order under Section 11 without notice to the parties and in their absence. In such a case, if the aggrieved party came to know of the order after the expiry of the time prescribed for presenting an appeal from the order, would the remedy be lost for no fault of his? It would be absurd to think so. It is a fundamental principle of justice that a party whose rights are affected by an order must have notice of it. This principle is embodied in Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; though the Forest Settlement Officer adjudicating on the claims under the Act is not a court, yet the principle which is really a principle of fair play and is applicable to all tribunals performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions must also apply to him. The point has been considered and decided by this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer. This was a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Court was considering the question of limitation under the proviso to Section 18 of that Act. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act a person who has not accepted the Collector's award can apply to the Collector requiring him to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. This application has to be made within six months from the date of the Collector's award in the case where the person interested was not present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or had received no notice from the Collector of the award. This application has to be made within six months from the date of the Collector's award in the case where the person interested was not present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or had received no notice from the Collector of the award. Constructing the expression "the date of award" this Court observed: The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way. ...Where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. (D) The Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 2141 took the similar view and para 13 of it is quoted hereunder: 13. So far as the party who is affected by the order or decision for seeking his remedies against the same, he should be made aware of passing of such order. Therefore Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to him or the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive is thus an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be said to have been concluded and binding on him. Otherwise the party affected by it will have no means of obeying the order or acting in conformity with it or of appealing against it or otherwise having it set. Otherwise the party affected by it will have no means of obeying the order or acting in conformity with it or of appealing against it or otherwise having it set. This is based upon, as observed by Rajamanner, C.J. in Muthia Chettiar v. C.I.T. AIR 1951 Mad 204 ) (supra) "a salutary and just principle". The application of this rule so far as the aggrieved party is concerned is not dependent on the provisions of the particular statute, but is so under the general law. (E) In Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in (1996) 5 SCC 83 , the Deputy Commissioner under his wireless message had conveyed its approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Head Gaonburah but without issuing a formal appointment order directed the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to inform the Petitioner about the said approval. But before such information could be given to the Petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner had changed his view and restrained the Addl. Deputy Commissioner from communication of his earlier approval to the appointment of the Petitioner and by another order appointed the rival claimant as Head Gaonburah. In the writ petition filed by the Petitioner before the Gauhati High Court, the order appointing the rival claimant was set aside by the High Court on the ground of non affording of prior opportunities taking that the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner which was not even communicated to the Petitioner was the approval of the Deputy Commissioner for appointing the Petitioner. But the Apex Court on appeal had set aside the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court and held that the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner for communicating its approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Head Gaonburah without formal order cannot be taken as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on his approval for such appointment of the Petitioner. Para 15 of the SCC in Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (supra) is quoted hereunder: 15. It is, therefore, necessary to determine whether the said order of appointment as contained in the WT message dated 15.2.1994 had become effective by having been communicated to the Petitioner prior to 8.3.1994. Para 15 of the SCC in Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (supra) is quoted hereunder: 15. It is, therefore, necessary to determine whether the said order of appointment as contained in the WT message dated 15.2.1994 had become effective by having been communicated to the Petitioner prior to 8.3.1994. It is no doubt true that by WT message dated 15.2.1994 the Additional Deputy Commissioner was directed to inform the Petitioner about approval of his appointment as Head Gaonburah from 31.1.1994. There is, however, nothing to show that the said order was actually communicated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Petitioner. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition filed before the High Court the Petitioner had asserted that the Petitioner was informed about the said appointment by WT message dated 15.2.1994. But in the affidavit-in-opposition of Shri Rakhal Chandra Deb Nath filed on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, in reply to the said assertion in paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been denied that the Petitioner was informed about his appointment as Head Gaonburah. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that on 5.2.1994 the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Viang Kiong had addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner stating the relevant facts and also indicating the rival claims of the Petitioner and Tagin Litin for the post of Head Gaonburah and sought for necessary advice for a fair selection for the post of Head Gaonburah and that on the receipt of the above letter the Deputy Commissioner decided to keep in abeyance the process of consideration of the case of Tagin Litin and to review the issue of a free and tair selection for appointment to the post of Head Gaonburah and thereafter WT message dated 8.3.1994 was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep in abeyance the appointment of the Petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek. The WT message dated 8.3.1994 also lends support to the said assertion in the said affidavit-in-opposition filed in the High Court because the said message makes a mention of the fact that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had given a suggestion for keeping the appointment of the Petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek in abeyance for the time being and the said suggestion had been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. This would indicate that prior to issuance of WT message dated 8.3.1994 the information regarding appointment of the Petitioner as Head Gaonburah as contained in WT message dated 15.2.1994 was not communicated to the Petitioner. There is no question of any such communication being made to him after 8.3.1994 because in WT message dated 3.3.1994 there was a clear direction that the said appointment be kept in abeyance. In these circumstances it must be held that prior to the issuance of the order dated 19.4.1994, there was no communication of the order dated 15.2.1994 to the Petitioner with regard to his appointment as Head Gaonburah of Simong village. In the absence of any such communication, the said order of appointment had not come into effect and the order dated 19.4.1994, whereby Tagin Litin was appointed as Head Gaonburah and the Petitioner was appointed as Second Head Gaonburah cannot be regarded as an order for removal of the Petitioner as Head Gaonburah. The impugned judgment of the High Court setting aside the order dated 19.4.1994 regarding appointment of Tagin Litin as Head Gaonburah and the Petitioner as Second Head Gaonburah and directing that the Petitioner should be treated as Head Gaonburah by virtue of WT message dated 15.2.1994 cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. 12A. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above by keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the considered view that date of approval of the Select List i.e. the Select List of 2000 containing the names of the Petitioner and another by the Union Public Service Commission, as per the provisions of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, would be 29.10.2001 on which it was notified that in exercise of the provisions contained in Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, the Union Public Service Commission has approved the 2000 Select List containing the names of the Petitioner and another. Accordingly, the validity period of 60 (sixty) days as per the provisions of Regulation 7(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 should be counted w.e.f. 29.10.2001. Accordingly, the validity period of 60 (sixty) days as per the provisions of Regulation 7(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 should be counted w.e.f. 29.10.2001. Accordingly, we are of the firm view that the State Government under its letter dated 22.12.2001 mentioned above, had requested the Union Public Service Commission to make the said 2000 Select List containing the name of the Petitioner and another which was provisional/conditional under the said notification dated 29.10.2001 as unconditional while the said Select List, i.e. 2000 Select List containing the names of the Petitioner and another was in force, i.e. within 60 (sixty) days from the date of approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission. 13. It is now well-settled position of law that the power of High Court to be exercised under Article226 of the constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable. The Apex Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 held that the purpose of power conferred on High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice, not to thwart it. Even where justice is the by-product of erroneous interpretation of law. Para 12 of the SCC in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (supra) is quoted hereunder: 12. We are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity reflected in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in a case where judicial mind would be tempted to utilize all possible legal measures to impart justice to a man mutilated so outrageously by his cruel destiny. The High Court non-suited him in exercise of a supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it (vide State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao). The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the high Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. The look out of the high Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. 14. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the interference with the judgment and order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.10.2002 passed in OA No. 38/02 is called for. Accordingly, the order dated 11.10.2002 of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench is hereby quashed and set aside. In the result, the Respondent No. 4, i.e. the Union Public Service Commission is directed to make the 2000 Select List containing the name of the Petitioner unconditional and Respondent No. 5 i.e. Union of India, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate follow up action after making the Select List unconditional by the Union Public Service Commission i.e. the Commission, by issuing necessary order in compliance with the provisions of Regulation 7 and Regulation 9 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. To the extent mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Parties are to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.