R.S. DOON Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') can pass ex parte interim order without complying with the mandate of proviso to Section 24 of the Act is the main question which arises for determination in these petitions filed for quashing of the order dated 1.1.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter described as 'the Tribunal) vide which it stayed the appointments of the petitioners and proforma respondents to the Indian Administrative Service.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and proforma respondents are holding substantive appointments in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). Their cases were considered by the Selection Committee constituted under the Regulation Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, 'the Regulations') in December, 2000 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Union Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) issued notification dated 3.1.2001 under Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations notifying the appointment of the petitioners and proforma respondents. On the following day i.e. 4.1.2001. the Government of India issued another notification under Rule 8(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Rules') read with Regulation 9 of the Regulations and Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 vide which the selected candidates were appointed to the Indian Administrative Service on probation.

(3.) IN the writ petition, it has been averred that despite repeated requests, the Tribunal has failed 10 decide the application filed for vacation of the interim order and the case is being adjourned from time to time on the pretext of the non -filing of written statements by the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal) and in this manner, they were being deprived of their legitimate right to take charge of the posts in the Indian Administrative Service. They have referred to the order dated 13.12.2000 passed in M.A. No. 1345 of 2000 (in O.A. No. 874 of 2000, Abhay Singh v. Union of India and others and the order dated 16.3.2001 passed in O.A. No. 209 of 2001, Mohan Lal Kaushik v. Union of India and others to show that in other cases involving challenge to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the Tribunal has declined to stay the appointments, but without considering the relevant factors and the mandate of Section 24, it granted ex parte interim order which is being continued from time to time.