MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dt. 07.09.2012 in original Application No. 484/2010. Petitioner filed the said original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal with the prayer that order of respondents dt. 16.02.2009, by which he was superseded and his juniors were promoted to Indian Police Service, be quashed and set aside and action of the respondents in not considering his candidature for promotion to Indian Police Service (for short, 'the IPS') for selection year 2007 be declared illegal and they be directed to consider the petitioner, for promotion by treating him within age as on 01.01.2007 and grant him all consequential benefits.

(2.) IT may be noted at the outset that original application filed by petitioner was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dt. 11.08.2011 as not maintainable being time barred. Petitioner, aggrieved thereby, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13162/2011 before division bench this Court and that writ petition was decided vide judgment dt. 10.07.2012, whereby the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for deciding application for condonation of delay and with liberty to the petitioner to file such application. With that direction, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.08.2011 was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to pass fresh order. It was thereafter that learned Tribunal has after condonation of delay again decided the original application by the judgment impugned in these proceedings, thereby dismissing original application on the premise that as per office memorandum issued by Government of India dt. 25.08.2010, case of petitioner cannot be reopened, as doing so would lead to opening up a Pandora's box.

(3.) SHRI Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned senior counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Parveen Kumar, supra. He further argued that aforesaid judgment in Parveen Kumar, was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14002/2010 - - Union of India vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.. The Supreme Court vide order dt. 31.05.2010 upheld the said judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court by dismissing the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Parveen Kumar was followed by Jaipur bench of the Tribunal in the case of Om Prakash Sharma in original Application No. 400/2010, decided vide judgment dt. 25.05.2010. Once the Tribunal had, in the present case, condoned the delay in filing Original Application, there was no valid justification for it for not allowing the Original Application on merits as there was no difference between the case of petitioner and that of Om Prakash Sharma except the year of selection. The issue involved in both the cases was common. Learned senior counsel submitted that learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified in dismissing the original application by relying on office memorandum dt. 25.08.2010 issued by the Government of India in its Department of Personnel and Training and held that case of petitioner cannot be reopened according to aforesaid office memorandum. It was argued that such office memorandum had no binding effect on the Tribunal. In any case, the aforesaid office memorandum also, in Para 4(iv), provides that eligibility of State Service Officers in cases of Review Selection Committee meeting, would be reckoned on the basis of Regulations/Interpretation prevailing in that year unless otherwise directed by a Court of Law. The direction of the Tribunal/Court, therefore, would take a precedence over the interpretation placed by the respondents. Learned senior counsel cited a judgment of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal allowing Original Application No. 2758/2010 - S. Puttaswamy vs. Government of India & Ors., delivered on 23.12.2010, wherein also the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Parveen Kumar (supra), was followed Learned senior counsel further referred to two more orders dt. 03.11.2011 and 09.01.2012 in identical O.A. No 1110/2011 G.S. Shivaswamy vs. Government of India, and O.A. No 1109/2011 -S Narasimhaiah vs. Government of India & Ors., respectively, passed by the Tribunal at its Principal Seat, New Delhi (Annexures 15 and 16 to writ petition), and argued that both, the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission, agreed before the Tribunal by filing reply that judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, will be followed in those cases. Accordingly, the applicants withdrew the Original Applications. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed and judgment of learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside