N SRIRAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE Rule. With consent, these petitions which raise common questions of law for consideration have been heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The petitions assail the correctness of two interim orders passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the ongoing process of selection for appointment of non-civil service employees of the State Government to Indian Administrative Service has been stayed. In addition the petitions pray for a writ of prohibition restraining the Tribunal from proceeding further with the hearing of the case filed before it. The controversy arises in the following backdrop: indian Administrative Service (Appointment and Selection) Regulations, 1997 envisage appointment of persons possessing outstanding merit and ability and holding gazetted posts in a substantive capacity with not less than eight years of continuous service in the State service to the Indian Administrative Service. Regulation 3 of the said Regulations stipulates that the central Government shall in consultation with the State Government concerned determine the number of vacancies for which recruitment may be made under the said regulations each year. Regulation 4 stipulates the conditions of eligibility for appointment to the Indian Administrative service. Regulation 5 envisages preparation of a list of suitable officers by the Committee while regulations 6 and 7 deal with consultation with the Commission and preparation of select list by it. Appointments to service are then made from out of the select list in terms of Regulation 8 of the Regulations with Regulation 9 reserving to the Central Government the power not to appoint any person whose name appears in the select list if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so in public interest.

(2.) IN keeping with the requirement of Regulation 3 of the above regulations, the Central government appears to have determined a total of eight vacancies for the year 2003 for which the process of recruitment was set in motion by the Government constituting a Screening committee in terms of Government Order dated 4-3-2002. This Committee was headed by the chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka with four other Secretaries to Government as its members. The Committee was required to short list the names of Non-State Civil Service officers eligible for induction in to the Indian Administrative Service.

(3.) INSTRUCTIONS were in the above background issued to the Secretaries to the Departments concerned in the form of a circular asking them to recommend the names of suitable Non-State civil Service Officers of Group A service category for consideration. The circular indicated the requirements which the Officers were supposed to meet before their names could be sent upto the Screening Committee. In response, the Committee appears to have received as many as 93 recommendations from different departments which were then examined by it to short list the names of 40 officers for being placed before the Selection Committee constituted under the regulations. The Selection Committee interviewed these 40 officers and on the basis of their performance in the interview and the service record recommended the names of eight candidates for appointment in terms of Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment and selection) Regulations, 1997. The name of another officer who happened to be the forty-first officer was also considered in obedience to an order issued by the Central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore. It was at this stage that O. A. No. 1006 of 2003 was filed by one of the 40 short-listed officers before the Tribunal assailing the process of selection on several grounds. An application for interim relief also appears to have been made for stay of further proceedings pending final disposal of the matter. By an ex parte order dated 23-12-2003, the Tribunal held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for staving the selection process, which was accordingly stayed pending further orders. The validity of the said order is assailed in Writ petition Nos. 2124 of 2004 and 2238 of 2004 filed by two of the Officers short-listed for consideration by the Screening Committee.