//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – Regulation 5(4) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service – Dropping disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent was recommended for promotion and was selected pending case in Central Tribunal – Central Tribunal allowed the O.A. – High court reversed the same – Apex court held that the State Government misled the UPSC which resulted in wrong assessment of service records of 1st respondent in violation of Regulation 5(4) read with Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. -The Tribunal noticed that the State Government dropped the charges against the 1st respondent without giving detailed reasons for such action. Considering the same the Tribunal held that the State Government failed to furnish the valid reasons for dropping charges and for subsequent issuance of integrity certificate to the 1st respondent. For the said reason theTribunal held that the action on the part of the State is a case of hasty decision.-The High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines dated 4th April, 2007 issued by the State Government with regard to the ACR and wrongly accepted the stand of the respondents that invalid ACRs were not to be considered. The High Court also exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing the charges framed against the 1st respondent and in justifying the grounds for dropping the charges, though it was not disclosed by the State Government. and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013, upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18th February, 2013 with direction to the respondent(s) to reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies for the year 2009 = CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.26223 of 2013) G. MOHANASUNDARAM … APPELLANT VERSUS R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41776

 

Service matter – Regulation 5(4)  of  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations,  1955 – for  promotion   to   the   Indian Administrative Service – Dropping disciplinary proceedings against the  1st  respondent was recommended for promotion and was selected pending case in Central Tribunal – Central Tribunal allowed the O.A. – High court reversed the same – Apex court held that  the   State Government misled the UPSC which resulted in  wrong  assessment  of  service records of  1st  respondent  in  violation  of  Regulation  5(4)  read  with Regulation  6  of  the  Indian  Administrative   Service   (Appointment   by

Promotion) Regulations, 1955. –The Tribunal noticed that the State  Government  dropped  the  charges against the 1st respondent without giving detailed reasons for such  action. Considering the same the Tribunal held that the State Government  failed  to furnish the valid reasons for dropping charges and for  subsequent  issuance of integrity certificate to the 1st respondent.  For  the  said  reason  theTribunal held that the action on the part of the State is a  case  of  hasty

decision.-The High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines  dated  4th  April, 2007  issued by the State Government with regard  to  the  ACR  and  wrongly accepted the stand of the respondents that  invalid  ACRs  were  not  to  be considered. The High Court also exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing  the charges framed against the 1st respondent and in justifying the grounds for dropping the charges, though it was not disclosed by the State Government. and set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  and order dated 8th July, 2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition No.5508 of 2013, upheld the  order  passed  by  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal dated 18th February, 2013 with direction to  the  respondent(s)  to reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for  promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies  for  the year 2009=

The appellant and the 1st respondent are officers of Tamil Nadu  State

Civil  Services.  They  were  considered  for  promotion   to   the   Indian

Administrative Service  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  “IAS”)  against

certain percentage of  posts  available  for  members  of  the  State  Civil

Service.

According to  the  appellant,  though  his  ACRs

were far better than the ACRs of other candidates including 1st  respondent,

he was not selected.

9.    A notification dated 10th February, 2012 was issued by the  Government

of India and the selected candidates were appointed to  the  IAS  cadre  for

the vacancies of 2009 and 2010.

10.   The appellant having not selected/promoted filed Original  Application

No.249 of 2012 before the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench

challenging the notification 10th February, 2012 passed  by  the  Government

of India.=

When the matter  was  pending,  on  15th  March,  2012  the  State

Government dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the  1st  respondent

taking into consideration the enquiry report and  reply  filed  by  the  1st

respondent. =

By an amendment application filed in pending OA,  the  appellant

challenged the notification of 13th April, 2012,  by  which  1st  respondent

was  appointed  to  the  Indian  Administrative  Service. =

Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by its judgment  and

order dated 18th February, 2013 allowed the Original  Application  filed  by

the appellant, quashed the notification dated 10th February, 2012 in so  far

as  not  including  the  name  of  the  appellant  herein  and  quashed  the

notification dated 13th April, 2012 by which 1st respondent was appointed.=

High court 

12.   The High Court at the instance of the 1st respondent allowed the  writ

petition and set aside  the  order  passed  by  the  Central  Administrative

Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA No.249 of 2012.=

Apex court held that 

we hold that in terms  of  Regulation

5(4)  of  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)

Regulations,  1955  it  was  incumbent  upon  State  Government  to  forward

complete service records of all the eligible candidates  including  the  1st

respondent to the UPSC for considering them  for  promotion  to  IAS  cadre.

Withholding of ACRs of the year 2003-2009 of the 1st respondent on  a  wrong

presumption that they were invalid, is illegal and fatal in the case of  1st

respondent towards his appointment to  the  post  of  Indian  Administrative

Service.

The aforesaid fact though came to the  notice  of  the  UPSC  which

sought  clarification  from  the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,   the   State

Government misled the UPSC which resulted in  wrong  assessment  of  service

records of  1st  respondent  in  violation  of  Regulation  5(4)  read  with

Regulation  6  of  the  Indian  Administrative   Service   (Appointment   by

Promotion) Regulations, 1955.

28.   The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  by  its  judgment  dated  18th

February, 2013 rightly held that the Selection Committee has not taken  into

account all relevant facts and records to come to a conclusion that the  1st

respondent is superior to appellant.

29.   The Central Administrative  Tribunal  also  considered  the  issue  of

departmental proceedings pending  against  the  1st  respondent  under  Rule

17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,  was  noticed

by the Selection Committee as apparent from recommendation of  the  name  of

1st respondent with a star mark shown against the same with a note  that  in

view of the pendency of the departmental proceedings inclusion of  the  name

of 1st respondent was provisional.  In  the  said  departmental  proceedings

Enquiry Officer after going through the evidence and reply submitted by  the

1st respondent  held  that  the  charge  No.2  is  proved  against  the  1st

respondent. In spite of the same, the State Government dropped the  charges.

30.   The Tribunal noticed that the State  Government  dropped  the  charges

against the 1st respondent without giving detailed reasons for such  action.

Considering the same the Tribunal held that the State Government  failed  to

furnish the valid reasons for dropping charges and for  subsequent  issuance

of integrity certificate to the 1st respondent.  For  the  said  reason  the

Tribunal held that the action on the part of the State is a  case  of  hasty

decision.

31.   The High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines  dated  4th  April,

2007  issued by the State Government with regard  to  the  ACR  and  wrongly

accepted the stand of the respondents that  invalid  ACRs  were  not  to  be

considered. The High Court also exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing  the

charges framed against the 1st respondent and in justifying the grounds  for

dropping the charges, though it was not disclosed by the State Government.

32.   For the reasons aforesaid, we set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  and

order dated 8th July, 2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition

No.5508 of 2013, upheld the  order  passed  by  the  Central  Administrative

Tribunal dated 18th February, 2013 with direction to  the  respondent(s)  to

reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for  promotion

to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies  for  the

year 2009A. If necessary, a fresh Selection Committee or a Review  Committee

shall be constituted and reconvened. The process of selection  be  completed

within three months. The order passed by the Tribunal  stands  modified  to

the extent above.

33.   The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and  directions.

No costs.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41776

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA

 

Service matter – Regulation 5(4) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,728,416 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com