S PUTTASWAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent No. 2 has produced the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulation, 1995 for preparation of yearwise list of members of the State service of Karnataka for promotion to Indian administrative Services.

(2.) FROM the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee for 2005, it is evident that the candidates were assessed on the basis of their service record and on the basis of their overall relative assessment, the merit list was drawn up. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd july, 2008. The petitioner appears to have been graded according to his service records for the past five years. There were only six vacancies and other candidates with the same grading as that of the petitioner, but who were senior to the petitioner had been selected. In the circumstances, non selection of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The procedure followed by the selection committee in its meeting appears to be in accordance with Regulation 5 (4) of the promotion regulations. The grading of the officers for 2005, including the petitioner is, as detailed by the Tribunal in paras 25 to 27 of the order dated 3rd July, 2008 which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner was not eligible for consideration for 2003 and 2004 and therefore, cannot contend that some of the candidates for those years had criminal cases pending against them and therefore, ought not to be considered. In any event, the petitioner could not have been considered against the vacancies of 2003 and 2004 as he was not eligible in those years. The Tribunal had noted that as per records furnished by the state Government no criminal/disciplinary proceedings were pending against the officers and integrity certificates had been furnished.