RAKESH CHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner herein, who is a member of the Tripura Civil Services (for short 'TCS'), has impugned the judgment and order, dated 26.04.2002, passed by the 'Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT'), Guwahati in Original Application No. 132 of 2001, whereby the application of the petitioner challenging promotion of respondents No. 5 to 15 to the Indian Administrative Services (for short 'IAS') in 1994 and seeking a direction to include his name in the select list for his promotion in IAS above respondents No. 9 to 15 with all service benefits including arrear of salary, has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in Grade-II of the TCS on 25.04.1977, confirmed on 24.07.1979, promoted to Grade-I of the service on 15.01.1987 and appointed as Inspector General of Prisons on 28.12.1999 without any adverse entries in his service records during the long tenure of his service as claimed by him in the writ petition. In 1994, a select list of TCS officers for promotion to IAS was prepared, which included eleven names including seven officers, who are juniors to the petitioner. The Selection Committee meeting was held on 29.03.1994 and 30.03.1994. The name of the petitioner along with others were considered, but the petitioner was not found suitable and accordingly, not included in the select list. Being aggrieved, he filed O.A. 145 of 1994 in CAT, Guwahati, which was disposed of on 11.03.1999. Before the CAT, the petitioner canvassed that the Selection Committee could not consider and recommend his name of promotion as his ACR for the year 1991-92 was placed in incomplete form and his ACR for 1992-93 was not at all placed before the Selection Committee. His further submission was that as per the provision of Regulation 5 of IAS (Appointment & Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Selection Committee is required to consider and make assessment of service records of the officers for a period of five years and such service records essentially include ACRs. His grievance before the CAT was that non-placement of his ACR of 1992-93 and incomplete ACR of 1991-92 led to his exclusion from the select list for the year 1993-94. The learned Tribunal extensively dealt with the grievance of the petitioner and came to the finding that ACR for the year 1992-93 of the petitioner was not in record as was not placed before the Selection Committee. As regards the ACR for the year 1991-92, it was found that the same was not complete inasmuch as there was no endorsement made by the accepting authority. Other ACRs, however, were on record. The State respondents did not come forward to say whether the ACR for 1992-93 was lost or destroyed or why the same could not be placed. After making such observations, the learned Tribunal directed the State respondents to make endeavour to find out the ACR for the said year and make proper assessment of the petitioner after comparing him with others. Following the said direction, the review selection committee met on 17.11.1999 to consider afresh the case of the petitioner and another. On 08.02.2000, the petitioner was informed that on the basis of the findings of the review selection committee, as approved by the Union Public Service Commission, he was not entitled for promotion to IAS from the 1993-94 select list for Tripura, thus, compelling the petitioner to knock the door of the Tribunal once again by filing O.A. 132 of 2001 assailing the impugned communication dated 08.02.2000 as aforesaid (Annexure-2) expressing same grievance that his ACR for the year 1991-92 was placed in incomplete form and the ACR for 1992-93 was not placed at all before the Review Selection Committee. He canvassed same submission again that in the absence of those ACRs., his relative merit vis-a-vis respondents No. 5 to 15, who figured in the select list could not be assessed and determined by the review selection committee, which was in contravention of the procedure laid down by the Govt. of India in the Department of personnel Training, issued on 10.03.1989 (Annexure-3). The second Original Application of the petitioner was dismissed after holding that the State Government made available the complete service record upto 1992-93 in respect of the petitioner before the Review Selection Committee, which met on 17.11.1999 to review the case of the petitioner and another and after an overall assessment of the service records, assessed him as 'good' and for that reason, could not recommend him for inclusion in the select list, which included only the officers graded as 'very good'. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner is thus before us challenging the above decision of the learned Tribunal in this writ petition.

(3.) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) being the second respondent and the State of Tripura being the third respondent filed separate counter-affidavit to contest the claim while others including the Union of India have not filed any reply.