K GOPALAKRISHNAN, IPS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED SECRETARY; GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED, HOME (SC) DEPARTMENT; REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the notified vacancy of the year 1980 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and he joined the service on 5.2.1982. Later, he was inducted into the IPS with effect from 12.12.1994 with the year of allotment as 1990 for purposes of seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that his juniors Mr. P. Tagore Paul and Mr. J. Ramamoorthy were included in the Select List for 1989-90 with the year of allotment as 1987. The Select Committee which met for considering the names for inclusion in the Select List for 1989-90 did not consider the name of the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed the requisite continuous service of eight years in the State Police Service whereas his juniors Mr. P. Tagore Paul and J. Ramamoorthy, who have also not completed eight years of service as on the crucial dale, have been included, considered and appointed to IPS. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Union Public Service Commission, communicated by the Director General of Police, by his proceedings dated 5.12.2000, on the ground that he completed the requisite qualifying service of eight years only on 4.2.1990 and therefore, he will not be eligible for consideration for promotion from the Select List of 1989-90 and as he was not confirmed on the day of the Selection Committee met for preparation of the Select List of 1990-91, he was not considered by the Committee and that Select Lists once approved and implemented are not reviewed by the Commission suo-motu. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 8 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal, by its order dated 14.9.2001, finding that the petitioner has made out a case in support of his claim seeking to fix his year of allotment as 1987, has quashed the above said order communication of the Director General of Police, dated 5.10.2000 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for refixing his seniority in the IPS cadre with effect from 1987 on par with his juniors P. Tagore Paul and J. Ramamoorthy and grant him all consequential monetary and service benefits within three months.

(2.) As against the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents have filed W.P. No. 269 of 2002 and this Court by the order dated 25.9.2002, has dismissed the said writ petition, upholding the order of the Tribunal, and further directing the respondents herein to implement the order of the Tribunal, within three months. As against the said order of this Court, SLP. No. 6797 of 2003 was preferred by the respondents before the Honourable Supreme Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.8.2003. In the meanwhile, on 5.3.2003, in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal and this Court, the Review Selection Committee met at Chennai and rejected the claim of the petitioner as 'unfit' and thus did not recommend any change in the recommendations of the Selection Committee that met in December, 1989 for preparation of the Select List of 1989. The Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi had approved the above recommendations of the Review Selection Committee in their letter dated 8.4.2003. This was informed by the third respondent to the petitioner by the communication dated 12.4.2003. At this stage, complaining noncompliance of this Court's order in W.P. No.269 of 2002, the petitioner has filed Contempt Petition No. 293 of 2003. In the said contempt petition, the respondents have contended that in adherence to the orders of the Tribunal and the Court, the name of the petitioner was included in the 'select list' for the year 1989-90, but the petitioner was found to be unfit in the further exercise which was taken up by the Union Public Service Commission under the relevant rules. The said contempt petition was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 4.9.2003, on the ground that once the petitioner's name as included in the select-list, then, it could only be left to the Union Public Service Commission to consider him as to whether he was fit enough and the Union Public Service Commission in doing that exercising and finding the petitioner unfit has not committed any illegality.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 626 of 2004 before the Tribunal, challenging the above said proceedings of the third respondent, dated 12.4.2003. Since the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.