DAYALRAO KANTHIRAM DESHPANDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Application is filed on 27.1.2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In this OA, Applicant seeks to challenge impugned notification dated 30.03.2009 issued by Government of Maharashtra under which respondent Nos. 4, 8, 9 and 10 who all belonged to the SCS (State Civil Service) of Maharashtra were promoted to IAS (Indian Administrative Service) in terms of Rule 8(1) of the IAS Recruitment Rules, 1954 (Annexure A -1). He also challenges a select list prepared by UPSC for the purpose of said promotion. In the OA the applicant claims the following facts:

(2.) THE IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 No. 3 requires that UPSC may constitute a Selection Committee every year which would prepare a list of Members of SCS suitable for promotion to IAS. The number of promotion to be given from among SCS officers is determined every year on the basis of substantive vacancies as on 1st January of that year. The suitable candidate must not have crossed the age of 54 years.

(3.) THE Selection Committee of the UPSC met at New Delhi on 27.11.2008 for the purpose of making a selection for the appointment to IAS by promotion for the years 2006 (4 vacancies), 2007 (4 vacancies) and 2008 (1 vacancy) all on the same day. In accordance with the Regulations 5(4) of the promotion regulation, the Selection Committee has to go to through all the service record of all the candidates in the zone of consideration and make their own assessment and classify the officers as "Outstanding", "Very Good", "Good" or "Unfit" in a relative over all assessment. The available vacancies are to be filled by selecting first from those categorised as "Outstanding", then from those categorised as "Very Good" and so on. For the year 2006, UPSC has selected 4 candidates namely Majrikar, Bharkade, Koche and Kulkarni; the name of the applicant does not appear in the list of candidates finally approved by UPSC for the year, 2006. As for the years 2007 and 2008, the Applicant was not eligible to be included in the zone of consideration in view of the prescribed age limit of 54. Hence the applicant challenges his non -selection for the year 2006. He takes following grounds: