JAWAHAR SANTHAKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was directly recruited as the Deputy Collector by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1985. It is seen from the materials placed on record that when the juniors of the petitioner, including Mr. N. Mathivanan, the 4th respondent herein, were promoted to the grade of District Revenue Officer (DRO) w.e.f. 25.1.1995, without promoting him, he filed O.A.No.169 of 1995 before the Tribunal, praying to consider his name for inclusion in the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 1994, without reference to the adverse remarks and censure suffered for him in 1988.

(2.) THE Single Member of the Tribunal, by the order dated 7.2.1995 has allowed the said O.A. and directed the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel of District Revenue Officers for 1994-95, without reference to the belated order of censure passed on the petitioner. THEreupon, the Government filed Review Application No.70 of 1995 before the Tribunal, challenging the competency and jurisdiction of the single Administrative Member in deciding the matter, after the Chairman demitted the office, quoting Section 5(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and a judgment of this Court in a Writ Petition, holding that such orders passed by a single Member of the Tribunal are illegal since in terms of Section 5(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal must consist of a Chairman and other members and that a single member cannot function unless he is authorized by the Chairman. In the said Review Application, the Government also questioned the finding that adverse remarks and punishment of censure need not be a bar for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel. It was also contended that the petitioner suffered the punishment of 'censure' and had adverse remarks and hence he was 'not found fit' by the Government to be included in the panel of District Revenue Officers for 1994-95. THE Tribunal by the order dated 8.12.1995 directed that the orders 'to consider the claim without reference to the order of censure is deleted'. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed S.L.P.No.6059 of 1996 before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, by the order dated 26.8.1996 in Civil Appeal No.11025 of 1996, has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for its disposal on merits and in accordance with law. On such remittal, the Tribunal, by the order dated 26.6.2002, in Review Application No.70 of 1995, has observed as follows:

(3.) NOW, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile, several of his juniors were considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and two of them i.e. the fourth and fifth respondents herein were promoted by the order dated 20.5.2005, to the I.A.S. for the three vacancies which arose for the year 2004 by a Selection held on 18.12.2004, but, no review DPC was conducted for considering his promotion to the IAS afresh, following alteration of his original seniority. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.749 of 2006, challenging the order dated 20.5.2005 promoting the respondents 4 and 5 to the IAS and seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to convene Selection Committee for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004 and consider him for promotion thereto, with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, holding that there is no irregularity committed by the Committee in making the relative assessment or any violation of rules or non-application of mind or discriminatory approach, has dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.