D JAGANNADHA RAO ADDL REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR TRIBUNAL DEVELOPMENT HYDERABAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRANING NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to appointment of selection of Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S.) under the provisions of Indian Administrative Service Act (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. The writ is directed against the Orders passed by the Centra! Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.87 of 2000.

(2.) Both the petitioners were initially selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in Group-I Service and appointed in the Co-operative Department. The 1st petitioner was appointed in 1977, while the 2nd petitioner was appointed in 1979. They were appointed in the cadre of Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies, subsequently they were promoted to higher posts from time to time. At the relevant time, the 1st petitioner was holding the post of Additional Registrar, while the 2nd petitioner was holding Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are maintaining excellent record of service throughout and they are eligible for selection to I.A.S. Cadre under the provisions referred to above. It is their case that for selection to I.A.S. for the year 2002, the service data of the Officers maintained outstanding track record was called for. Selections were conducted by the selection committee constituted under the Regulations on 27th, 30th and 31st December, 2002. The grievance of the petitioners is that the selection process adopted by the selection committee was not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. In that, one of the members of the selection committee Mr. Arjun Rao, the 6th respondent herein has participated in the selection process only in respect of the candidates in whom he was interested namely, the respondents No.9 to 13. The said Mr. Arjun Rao did not interview the other candidates. Thus, there was no proper evaluation of the respective merits of each candidates by the Committee members. Hence, the selection is vitiated on account of the procedural irregularities in the selection process. It is stated that in all 29 persons were interviewed for 5 vacancies and since the procedure followed is irregular, the selection process has to be declared as invalid.