T SHAM BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave directed against an order dated 28/7/1993 made in Application No. 230 of 1993 by the central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore 'the tribunal', the constitutionality of Regulation 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) SECOND Amendment Regulations, 1989 'the INDIAN administrative SERVICE Second Amendment Regulations', is raised for our consideration and decision,

(2.) The appellant is a Class I officer who holds a substantive gazetted post in the government of Karnataka. He belongs to its non-State Civil Service and has been serving the State in connection with its affairs involving duties comparable in importance and responsibility to that of Class I officers of the State Civil Service. Since unamended clause (ii) of sub-regulation (1 of Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 'the INDIAN administrative SERVICE Selection Regulations', required a non-State Civil Service Class I officer to complete 8 years of continuous service in a gazetted post involving duties comparable in importance and responsibility to that of Class I officer in gazetted post of State Civil Service, to make such officer eligible for the selection to the Indian Administrative Service, the appellant could have become eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service from non-State Civil Service of Karnataka on completion of 8 years of his continuous service in the substantive post held by him. But, before the appellant could become eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service, Regulation 2 of the INDIAN administrative SERVICE Second Amendment Regulations which came into force on 30/3/1989 made all non-State Civil Service Class I officers including the appellant ineligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service until they completed 12 years of continuous service in substantive gazetted posts.

(3.) Appellant being a Class I officer of non-State Civil Service whose possible selection to Indian Administrative Service on completion of his 8 years of continuous service was foreclosed by Regulation 2 of the INDIAN administrative SERVICE Second Amendment Regulations, challenged its constitutionality before the tribunal as that inhibited by Articles 14 and 16 (1 of the Constitution of India, by filing an application therefor. Since the tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of Regulation 2 of the INDIAN administrative SERVICE Second Amendment Regulations by its order dated 28/7/1993, the appellant has assailed the justness and correctness of that order of the tribunal by filing the present appeal by special leave.