NIRANJAN SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Review Petitions have been filed by one Niranjan Sethi with a prayer to review the common judgment dated 21.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.24325 and 24106 of 2011 and confirm the order dated 22.6.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.33 of 2011. Said Niranjan Sethi was opposite party no.6 in W.P.(C) Nos.24325 and 24106 of 2011 and an applicant in O.A. No.33 of 2011 before the learned Tribunal.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the undisputed facts are as follows: The Government of Orissa in General Administrative Department vide its letter dated 17.7.2010 called for nomination of Non State Civil Service Officers for consideration of appointment to two posts of Indian Administrative Service for the year 2010. The above noted selection to Indian Administrative Service is guided by the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (in short "1997 Regulations"). The said Regulations refer to a Committee in Regulation 2(a). Regulation 2(a) makes it clear that "Committee" means the committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short "1955 Regulations"). Regulation 3 of 1955 Regulations provides for constitution of a committee to make selection and refers to the Schedule which contains details of members of the Committee. The Committee indicated at Sl.No.3 of the Schedule is relevant for the present purpose. As per the said Schedule, it has to consist of Chairman of UPSC/his representatives, Chief Secretary of State Government, Senior most officer of the Cadre serving in the State, other than the Chief Secretary, Heads of General Administrative Department/Personnel Department/Revenue Department of State Government not below the rank of Secretary and two nominees of Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Thus the Selection Committee consists of very high officials. 1997 Regulations prescribe different stages for selection. Regulation 4 of 1997 Regulations makes it clear that the number of persons proposed for consideration of the Committee shall not exceed five times number of vacancies proposed to be filled up during the year. Thus it prescribes an outer limit with regard to number of persons to be considered. Regulation 5 of 1997 Regulations states that the Committee shall meet every year to consider proposal of the State Government made under Regulation 4 of 1997 Regulations and recommend the names of persons not exceeding the number of vacancies for appointment to IAS. Regulation 5 is the most important Regulation as it speaks of preparation of a list of suitable officers after scrutiny of service records and personal interview. In the present case, the dispute started with non recommendation of the name of Niranjan Sethi under Regulation 4 of 1997 Regulations. In fact, initially, the name of said Niranjan Sethi was recommended but later a revised list of 9 officers was forwarded excluding the name of said Niranjan Sethi as some of his official actions were under investigation by the Vigilance Department. Accordingly, 9 officers whose names appeared in the revised list, were directed to appear before the Selection Committee. Against such action, said Niranjan Sethi submitted a representation and later approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing Original Application No.718 of 2010. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application directing the Union Public Service Commission to consider the representation of Niranjan Sethi. UPSC rejected his representation on 19.1.2011. Upon rejection, said Niranjan Sethi filed O.A. No.33 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. In the meantime, on 9.11.2010, the Selection Committee held its meeting for preparing a list of suitable officers as required under 1997 Regulations by scrutinizing service records and by holding personal interview. Nine officers as indicated above appeared in the said personal interview. Accordingly, Niranjan Sethi filed the above O.A. No.33 of 2011 with the following prayers:

(3.) MR . G. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioner (Niranjan Sethi) submitted that the ordering portion as contained in Paragraph 16 of the judgment dated 21.12.2012 altering the directions of the Tribunal to quash the entire selection and confining the same to his client needs to be reviewed and for such alteration no reason has been given. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587 (Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala). He submitted that altering/modifying the direction of the Tribunal for quashing the entire selection process without giving any reason amounts to error apparent on the face of record. Secondly, he submitted that no prejudice would be caused to all 10 candidates as they will attend the selection afresh. Thirdly, he submitted that by altering the direction of the Tribunal uniformity cannot be maintained in the process of selection as there would be a gap of more than two years in between the selection held on 9.11.2010 and one which would be held presently confining the same to Niranjan Sethi after direction of this Court. Mr. Rath further submitted that the persons constituting the new Selection Committee would be different than the persons who constituted the Selection Committee on 9.11.2010. Thus, no uniformity can be maintained. In this context, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in 45 (1978) CLT 18 (N.C. Mohanty v. State of Orissa), an unreported decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Gazla Masoodi and other v. State and others in SWP No.1506 of 2011 & CMP Nos.2436, 3357, 3318, 3319 and 3422 of 2012 decided on 04.12.2012, a decision of Gauhati High Court reported in 2007 (1) GLT 260 (State of Assam and others v. Rimki Buragohain and others), an unreported decision of Madras High Court in the case of UPSC v. Sivakumar in WP Nos.4371, 4374 and 4375 of 2001 and PMP No.6168 of 2001 decided on 30.6.2006 and AIR 1981 SC 487 (Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others etc.). Lastly he submitted that after issuance of Annexures R 6/1 and R 6/2 pursuant to the order dated 22.6.2011 passed in O.A. No.33 of 2011 by the Tribunal fresh cause of action has arisen. Since Gopabandhu Satpathy and Pradeep Kumar Biswal, who are opposite parties in the Review Petitions, never challenged the same, those communications still stand and accordingly, no relief ought to have been granted to Gopabandhu Satpathy and Pradeep Kumar Biswal in W.P.(C) Nos.24325 and 24106 of 2011. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291.