MANGSATABAM HAREKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. for the UPSC, Mr. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondents no. 6,9,10,11,12 and 13, Ms. Babita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. K.R. Pamei, learned counsel for the Union of India respondent.

(2.) The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2013 passed in Original Application No. 212 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench by which the application filed by the present petitioner, namely, Mangsatabam Harekrishna challenging the Government Notification No. 14015/15/2011-AIS(I)-B dated 01.03.2012 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India notifying and appointing the members of the State Civil Services to the Indian Administrative Services on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner had been wrongly superseded by placing him below his junior officers in the Select List of the year 2010 by downgrading his ACR, was dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner is a member of the Manipur Civil Services (MCS) and his name figures at Sl. No. 11 of the final seniority list of the Manipur Civil Service Officers which was notified on 01.06.2010 and the private respondents no. 5 and 6 with whom the petitioner is primarily aggrieved are placed at Sl. Nos. 14 and 15 below the petitioner in the said seniority list. A Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment and Promotion Regulations, 1955 was held on 22.12.11 for preparing the Select Lists of members of the Manipur State Civil Services for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service of the Manipur Segment of the Manipur Tripura Joint Cadre against 2 (two) vacancies of 2009 and 12 (twelve) vacancies of 2010. The Selection Committee prepared the Select List of 2009 selecting 2 (two) officers who were senior to the petitioner and as such the petitioner has not raised any grievance against the said Select List of 2009. However, while preparing the Select List of 2010, 12 (twelve) officers were selected in which the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 6 of the said Select List and the respondents no. 5 and 6 who were junior to the petitioners in the State Service have been placed above him at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3. It is this placement of two junior officers above him in the Select List of 2010 that the petitioner has taken strong objection to. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been consistently graded as "Outstanding" in the ACRs for the relevant years of 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, yet he has been downgraded as "Very good" in the overall assessment made by the Selection Committee. On the other hand, these two junior officers have been graded as "Outstanding" by the Selection Committee resulting in superseding him in the Select List.