G. MOHANASUNDARAM Vs. R. NANTHAGOPAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on July 21,2014

G. Mohanasundaram Appellant
VERSUS
R. Nanthagopal Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BRIJ MOHAN CHAUHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SAHAI PAREWA VS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, JODHPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J & K VS. MUZAFFAR AHMAD KHAN [LAWS(J&K)-2015-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JANDK AND OTHERS VS. BRAHAM DEV [LAWS(J&K)-2015-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. IQBAL VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2017-8-142] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013. Initially, the appellant herein challenged the Government notifications dated 10th February, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 whereby 1st respondent was promoted and appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing OA No.249 of 2012 and the same was allowed by order dated 18th February, 2013. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the said order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellant and the 1st respondent are officers of Tamil Nadu State Civil Services. They were considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as the ''IAS '') against certain percentage of posts available for members of the State Civil Service.

(3.)ON 1st September, 2009, the State of Tamil Nadu prepared a list of 27 eligible candidates for consideration for appointment against 19 vacancies of IAS for the year 2009. The list was sent to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ''UPSC ''). The name of the appellant was included at serial No.26 and the name of the 1st respondent was placed at serial No.16 of the said list prepared on the basis of seniority list of the State Civil Service. In the seniority list of State Civil Service the appellant was placed at serial No.59 and 1st respondent at serial No.34.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.