IRRINKI SRINAGESH Vs. STATE OF A P REP BY ITS CHIEFSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the interim order dated 07.12.2011 passed in O.A.No. 1183 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). The brief facts are that the petitioner, who secured 26th rank in Group-I Services, 1993, was appointed as Municipal Commissioner Grade-II through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Group-II, and he joined in service on 10.04.1996 and worked as such till 10.12.1997. Later, he secured 2nd rank in the State in Group-I Services, 1995 and was appointed as Commercial Tax Officer and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in December, 2005 and is working as such. He states that his basic pay as Commercial Tax Officer is on par with the basic pay of Deputy Collector i.e., Rs. 10845-25600 as per PRC 2005 and he is now in the pay scale of Rs. 14600-29250 which is payable to the Gazetted Officers at the 3rd level of hierarchy. He states that he is below 54 years of age and is working in the post above the cadre of Deputy Collector and he completed continuous service of 14 years and is eligible for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) by selection. He states that he has been graded as 'outstanding' throughout his service by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and also received awards/commendation certificates and he was recently recommended for grant of incentive award for 2010-2011 for his outstanding work and he identified and re-wrote in entirety the tax liability of M/s. Nuclear Fuel complex (NFC), Hyderabad, unearthing huge undisclosed turnovers and bringing them to tax net and collecting Rs. 188.15 crores till date.

(2.) During pendency of this writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos. 41812, 42228 and 42549 of 2011 and 1629 of 2012 are filed seeking to implead the petitioners therein as party respondent Nos. 7 to 10, 11 to 13, 14 and 15 & 16 respectively. This Court ordered all these petitions on various dates. Some of the impleaded respondents allege that the State Government recommended their names and the selection process has to be completed by the end of December, 2011, filed vacate petitions seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court.

(3.) The first respondent filed counter stating that as per Regulation 4 of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, the State Government shall consider the case of a person not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in connection with the affairs of the State who,