BUDHIMANTA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application assails the order dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dismissing the Original Application No. 435 of 2003 as not maintainable.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as Joint Auditor General, Co -operative Societies, Government of Orissa. His grievance is that under Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the Central Government on recommendation of the State Government and in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government and the Commission recruit persons by promotion from the State Civil Service. Under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 8, the Central Government may, in special circumstances and on the recommendation of the State Government and in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with such regulations recruit Officers to the Indian Administrative Service having outstanding ability and merit serving in connection with affairs of the State, but is not a member of the State Civil Service. Such person should be holding a gazetted post in a substantive capacity. The further case of the petitioner is that his name was first recommended during the year 1993 -94 for being interviewed by the UPSC but he could not be given appointment. According to the petitioner, since in the year 1993 -94 he was recommended by the State Government under Rule 8(2) for the purpose of recruitment to I.A.S., he was also eligible to be recommended in the current year, but such recommendation having not been made by the State Government, he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition as not maintainable solely on the ground that non -recommendation of the name of the petitioner by the State Government being the crux of the matter, the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner is not a member of Orissa Administrative Service and, therefore, does not hold a post in the State Civil Service. There is no dispute that the petitioner is holding a gazetted post in substantive capacity and, therefore, not being a member of the State Civil Service of the State, he is entitled to be considered for recommendation provided he has outstanding ability and merit. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1993 -94 the petitioner having been recommended for appointment to I.A.S., his ability and merit cannot be questioned and the same having been considered once and the name of the petitioner having been recommended, there was no reason for the State Government not to recommend the petitioner for the recruitment to the I.A.S. in the current year. Here in this writ application we are not called upon to decide the case on merit and we are only to decide as to whether the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was maintainable or not.