Venkatachala, J. - (1.) Two short questions which require to be answered by us in deciding this appeal are, these: 1. Is the provision in the Instructions dated March 21, 1978 issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, prescribing the minimum period of service as Section Officer to make him eligible for promotion as Accounts Officer inconsistent with any of the provisions in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, and hence void 2. Was the Comptroller and Auditor General of India competent to issue Administrative Instructions dated March 21, 1978
(2.) The Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, to be referred to as 'the Rules', were made by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution after consulting the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Rules contained provisions which provided for certain matters relating to recruitment for the posts of Administrative Officers, Assistant Accounts Officers and Assistant Audit Officers in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. Subsequently, when Instructions dated March 21, 1978 were issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, they also contained a provision relating to promotion of Section Officers in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, which read: "Section Officers with completed five years' service in the grade as on 1st April last are considered eligible for empanelment for promotion as Accounts Officer in the subsequent year. In the case of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe Section Officers, the eligible period for empanelment is four years of service on the crucial date, but they cannot be promoted until completion of five years' service as Section Officers."
(3.) Respondent-1, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was a Section Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Punjab and hence a member of the Subordinate Accounts Service. As on 1st April, 1978, he was not eligible for empanelment for promotion as Accounts Officer in the subsequent year in that he had not completed four years of service as Section Officer required to make him eligible for empanelment and consequential promotion as Accounts Officer, Class-II , under the above provision of the Instructions. However, respondents 2 and 3, who had completed five years of service as Section Officer before 1st April, 1978 and became eligible for empanelment for promotion as Accounts Officers under the said provision of the Instructions, were empanelled for promotion as Accounts Officers and promoted as Accounts Officers as provided for therein. Respondent 1 questioned the empanelment and promotion of respondents-2 and 3 as Accounts Officers from that of Section Officers by filing a Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 2485 of 1978 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The ground urged in support of the petition was that the Instructions which required completion of four years of service by 1st April, 1978 by a person as a Section Officer to make him eligible for empanelment and consequent promotion as Accounts Officer being inconsistent with the matters for which provisions were made in the Rules, could not have come in the way of his promotion as Accounts Officer though he had not put in the required service for eligibility for empanelment under the Instructions. Another ground urged was that the aforesaid Instructions could not have come in the way of his promotion, in that, they were not issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the requisite competence. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition by his Order dated July 26, 1984 finding inter alia that the impugned provision in the Instructions relied upon by the respondents was inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Rules and the Instructions issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India were without competence. Consequently, he issued a direction to the Union of India and the Accountant General, Punjab to consider the case of respondent-1 (petitioner in the Writ Petition) for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer from the date on which his claim for promotion was ignored.;