R.NANTHAGOPAL Vs. G.MOHANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner and the first respondent are the officers belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Civil Service and they were in the zone of consideration for promotion to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. While so, since the writ petitioner was promoted and appointed to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service by the Central Government, by the notifications dated 10.2.2012 and 13.4.2012, but not himself, the first respondent herein (G. Mohanasundaram), as applicant, filed O.A. No. 249 of 2012, challenging the said notifications. As the Tribunal favoured the case of the applicant therein, thus setting aside the said notifications, insofar as not including the name of the applicant, the first respondent therein (R. Nanthagopal) has come forward to file this writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P. No. 3 of 2013, praying to implead the Tribunal as a party respondent to these proceedings. Since being only a formal party and that no prejudice is going to visit any party by impleadment of the Tribunal, the same is hereby allowed, bringing on record the Tribunal as the fifth respondent to these proceedings. Appointment from the State Civil Service to the Indian Administrative Service is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). These Regulations envisage distinct roles in respect of the State Government, UPSC and the Central Government with specific mandates in the process of preparation of the select list of State Civil Service Officers for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, right from the stage of drawing the list of eligible officers by the State Government to finally making appointments to the service from the select list by the Central Government. While the State Government has the exclusive role in regard to drawing of the consideration zone of the eligible State Civil Service Officers to be placed before the Selection Committee in terms of seniority of these officers in the State Civil Service, the UPSC is concerned with the select list prepared and approved under Regulation 7(3) on the basis of the gradings made by the Selection Committee and with the aid of observations of the State and Central Governments. The Central Government would make appointments from the select list on the recommendations of the State Government in the order in which the names of the members of the State Civil Service appear in the select list, being in force, during its validity period.

(2.) From the materials placed on record, it is seen that as per Regulation 5(5), the Government of India, in consultation with the Government of Tamil Nadu, determined 19 vacancies of IAS for the year 2009 and accordingly, the State Government sent a proposal to Union Public Service Commission. Since as per Regulation 5(2), for each one vacancy, three names have to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission i.e. in 1:3 ratio, for consideration by the Selection Committee, the names that were to be sent by the State Government were 57, but as there were only 27 eligible candidates in the State, the State Government forwarded those 27 names to the Union Public Service Commission for consideration by the Selection Committee and in the said list, while the name of the first respondent figures at Sl. No. 27, the name of the writ petitioner was at Sl. No. 17. Though both of them were issued with the Integrity Certificates by the State Government, subsequently, the State Government withheld the Integrity Certificate of the writ petitioner. But, however, both of them were not selected in that selection.

(3.) But, subsequently, based on the orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP. No. 15798 of 2009 in the matter of Praveen Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, dated 1.2.2010, as confirmed by the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP. No. 14002 of 2010 Department of Personnel and Training v. Praveen Kumar and Others, the second respondent issued Office Memorandum dated 25.8.2010 to the effect that the Select List will, henceforth, be styled, coinciding with the year of vacancies and in the case of overlapping Select Lists, the Government of India have decided that Select Lists already acted upon may not be renamed and the second list may be named adding 'A' to the year of Select Lists. Accordingly, since the earlier Select List of 2009 relates to actual vacancies of the year 2008, the Government of India, Union Public Service Commission and State Government took steps to prepare the Select List of 2009A and 2010 against the vacancies which arose during the years 2009 and 2010 respectively.