Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Holding that the decision taken by the Union of India not to make appointments to the Indian Police Service (IPS) pursuant to the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) which took place from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, is legal and valid, the 3-judge bench of Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, JJ said:

“the decision to scrap the LCE recruitment has been taken in the larger public interest. The decision is definitely not mala fide. It is not actuated by extraneous reasons.”

The reasons given the Government to support it’s decision were:

  1. percentage of vacancies has gone down;
  2. the selection process has been delayed by many years which will mean that the persons selected will be at least 5 years older than as expected;
  3. many petitions are still pending and the matter has not been finally decided, which could lead to further delay; and
  4. it is apprehended that there would be a surfeit of litigation between candidates, if any, appointed through LCE and those who are recruited by direct recruitment or promotion during the years 2012 to 2018.

The Court noticed that it is the combined effect of all the grounds which will have to be taken into consideration. There is no manner of doubt that it was expected that the result would be declared in the year 2013 and the officers would be sent for training in the same year.

The Court said:

“The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013 at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5 years older. No doubt, they are members of the State Police Service or the Central Police Organisation, but their induction or recruitment in the IPS is delayed by more than 5 years. When the Government laid down a policy that upper age limit was 35 years, it must have had some reason for fixing the upper age limit. That purpose is now defeated.”

The Court also said that if the Union is compelled to make the appointments, this will lead to a plethora of litigation where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018 will claim seniority over the persons, who appear in the LCE. It said that such litigation would not be in public good and will achieve no higher purpose.

The Court, hence, held:

“When we examine the decision taken by the Central Government in a holistic manner, we have no doubt that the decision to scrap the LCE recruitment has been taken in the larger public interest.”

[Lt. CDR M. Ramesh v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 393, decided on 17.04.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the appeal against the order of the High Court where it refused to issue mandamus to the Central Government directing the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the effect that duty payable by the appellant on goods manufactured by it shall not be paid, the Court said that where the statute vests a discretionary power in an administrative authority, the Court would not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it is made with oblique end or extraneous purposes or upon extraneous considerations, or arbitrarily, without applying its mind to the relevant considerations, or where it is not guided by any norms which are relevant to the object to be achieved.

The appellants had contended that excise duty on the goods manufactured by the appellant i.e. Rosin/Turpentine, is, otherwise, payable in law, however, insofar as the history of payment of excise on these goods is concerned, record shows that vide notification No. 179/77-CE dated 18.06.1977, the Central Government had exempted all goods, falling under Item No.68 of erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Government Excise and Salt Act, 1944 in or relation to the manufacturing of such goods where no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Hence, recovering excise duty from the appellants violates their rights under Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Rejecting the said contention, the Court held that it would neither be a case of discrimination nor it can be said that the appellants have any right under Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which has been violated by non-issuance of notification under Section 11C of the Act. Once the appellant accepts that in law it was liable to pay the duty, even if some of the units have been able to escape payment of duty for certain reasons, the appellant cannot say that no duty should be recovered from it by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well established that the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and cannot be applied in the negative.

The Bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, said that when ‘power’ is given to the Central Government to issue a notification to the effect not to recover duty of excise or recover lesser duty than what is normally payable under the Act, for deciding whether to issue such a Notification or not, there may be various considerations in the mind of the Government. Merely because conditions laid in the said provisions are satisfied, would not be a reason to necessarily issue such a notification. It is purely a policy matter. [Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 461, decided on 24.04.2017]