PARMESHWAR BABU PRASHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who joined the Bihar Statistical Service in a Class-II gazetted post on 22-8-1968, was promoted to Class-I post in July, 1992 and again in July, 1994 he was given the Senior Selection Grade. His name was said to have been recommended on 15-11-1994 for appointment by selection to the I.A.S. by his Parent Department. But since no meeting of the State Committee for short-listing of candidates took place for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 for officers of the said category, the proposal by his Parent Department did not materialize. On 12-12-1996, it appears that the name of the appellant was again recommended by his Parent Department for being considered for appointment by selection to the post of IAS. The State Scrutiny Committee, whose task is to short-list the names of such candidates received from various Departments of the Government other than the State Civil Service for further consideration by the Select Committee as per the Regulations seems to have not favourably considered the claim of the appellant since he was above 54 years as on 1-4-1996, i.e. the relevant cut-off date for consideration of claims for the year 1996-97. Apparently, on coming to know that he was not one of the persons called for interview while others had been, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna, by filing O.A.No. 213 of 1997. In the said application, Interim orders of stay appear to have been obtained also, which came to be ultimately vacated by the Tribunal on 18-9-1997 on being brought to its notice that the appellant was overaged as on 1-4-1996. The High Court also declined to interfere at its instance at that stage, in CWJC No. 9334 of 1997.

(2.) The main O.A. No. 213 of 1997 itself was subsequently taken up for consideration and by an Order dated 14-9-1998, the same came to be dismissed rejecting the plea of the appellant for a different cut-off date and that so far as his claim was concerned, it could be anything other than 1-4-1996 for the reason that there was no meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 at the State level in respect of appointment to I.A.S. through selection method. The Tribunal has meticulously analysed the difference between the consideration of claims of State Civil Service Officers as envisaged under I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion), Regulations, 1955 on the one hand and IAS. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 on the other, by highlighting the fact that unlike the statutory obligation to have an annual selection for appointment by promotion, no such duty was cast under the Regulations, for obvious reasons, for such annual consideration in respect of appointment by selection method. Not satisfied, the appellant has come before this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel on either side. Shri A. Sharan appearing for the appellant sought to draw inspiration based on proviso to Regulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and also the decisions reported in Union of India vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721, Syed Khalid Rizvi vs. Union of India etc. (1993 Supp (3) SCC 575, T. Sham Bhat vs. Union of India (1994) 3 Suppl. SCC 340 and Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC 1910) to project the claim of the appellant besides placing strong reliance upon the circular dated 18-10-1996 issued by the Government of Bihar and the Letter dated 19-9-1996 of the Union Public Service Commission. Per contra, Shri N. N. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the Union of India, and Shri B. B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, adopted the reasoning of the Tribunal and submitted that the decision of the Tribunal calls for no interference since they are quite in accordance with the Regulations and the procedure governing the selection for appointment by selection method from the category of Non-State Civil Service Officers.