ARTI BURMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 13.7.2012 passed in O.A. No. 183 of 2011(R) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi by which the C.A.T. has dismissed the petitioner's O.A. No. 183 of 2011 (R).

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that she is State Civil Service Officer of the State of Jharkhand. She joined the State Civil Service on 6.6.1980. Her date of birth is 1.1.1954. She was promoted on the post of Joint Secretary rank with effect from 18.6.2011. According to petitioner, she came to know that a meeting was held on 17.6.2011 for consideration of promotion of State Civil Service Officer in I.A.S. Cadre for filling up the vacancies arisen on 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008. She also came to know that her name was not included in the selection/consideration list on the ground that she was not found eligible. However, according to petitioner, her name was initially included in the select list by a competent committee of the State Government headed by the Chief Secretary and consisting of members i.e. Development Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government, Department Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. However, vide communication dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure-1) copy of which has been annexed in this writ petition, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha informed the Under Secretary (AIS), Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi that as per telephonic discussion and in continuation of letter No. 7867 dated 26.12.2010 the name of the petitioner has been excluded in the revised list and, therefore, the revised list may be considered. According to petitioner, once the competent body of the State Government has already taken a decision with respect to recommendation for the petitioner so that her name may be considered by the U.P.S.C., then in that situation, one of the officers of the State Government, may be holding the post of Principal Secretary, could not have deleted the name of the petitioner from the list of recommendees. Learned counsel for the petitioner's further contention is that from communication dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure-2), subsequent to abovesaid letter dated 29.12.2010, also confirms that petitioner's name was deleted subsequently and as per the stand of the U.P.S.C. also, petitioner's name since was not forwarded by the State Government, therefore, the petitioner's candidature was not considered by the U.P.S.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that U.P.S.C. therefore, had no occasion to apply its mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner at the time of consideration of the candidature of other candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the list declared by the U.P.S.C., it is clear that juniors to petitioner have been given promotion in the cadre of the I.A.S.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave error of law in interpreting the relevant provisions governing the promotion from the State Civil Services to the Indian Administrative Service and particularly, the Regulations of 1955 which defines various terms and prescribes the procedure for selection of the State Administrative Service Officer to the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the definition of the "year" given in Clause (I) of Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations of 1955 it is Clear that "Year" means the period commencing on the first day of January and ending on the thirty first day of December of the same year. The Regulation 5(3) provides that the Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil Services who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared. It is submitted that "attained" has not been defined in the Regulations. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the above it is clear that the vacancy is required to be determined year wise meaning thereby for the year - 2008 the vacancy is required to be determined from 1st January, 2008 to 31st December, 2008. The petitioner since born on 1.1.1954, therefore, she attained the age of 54 years on 1.1.2008. In this view, the petitioner was eligible candidate on 1.1.2008 for promotion to the cadre of I.A.S. The vacancy is admittedly of the year 2008 commencing from 1.1.2008, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been denied the promotion to the cadre of I.A.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Praveen Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others delivered in C.W.P. No. 15798 of 2009 decided on 1.2.2010 (copy of which is annexed in the writ petition). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Punjab & Haryana High Court has considered the issue in detail and rendered the judgment which favours the case of the petitioner. Against the judgment of Praveen Kumar, the Union of India preferred S.L.P.(C) No. 14002/2010 which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.5.2010.