D.P.WADHWA - (1.) THE appellant who belongs to State Civil Service of the State of Maharashtra, it appears, could not get complete relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), (New Bombay Bench), New Bombay for his claim to be promoted to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (for short 'the Regulations') from the year 1986. Instead the Tribunal granted him relief to be promoted to Indian Administrative Service under the aforesaid Regulation for the year 1987.
(2.) SELECTION Committee for Maharashtra constituted under Regulation 3 of the Regulations met on 13/12/1984 and prepared a Select List under Regulation 5 for filling up of 8 vacancies during the period of 12 months from the date of the meeting. The name of the appellant was included at Serial No. 11 of the Select List. The Select List so prepared is to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission') by the State Government which finally approves the Select List. Under Regulation 9(1) appointment of members of the State Civil Service to the Indian Administrative Service shall be made by the Central Government on the recommendation of the State Government in the order in which the names of members of the State Civil Service appear in the Select List for the time being in force. The Commission approved the select list. The State Government, however, did not operate the Select List and sent no proposal to the Central Government and as such no appointment was made from the Select List so prepared to the Indian Administrative Service. Next Selection Committee for the State of Maharashtra met on 19/12/1985 to prepare Select List towards filling up of 13 vacancies which now existed and those anticipated during the period of 12 months from the date of the meeting. The name of the appellant was included at Serial No. 9 of the Select List. The Select List was approved by the Commission on 23/01/1986. State of Maharashtra sent a proposal to the Central Government for appointment of the officers included at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and 11 of the Select List with "no deterioration certificate" in their favour. The name of the appellant who was appearing at Serial No. 9 of the Select List was excluded by the State Government while forwarding the proposal for appointment of other candidates to the Central Government. Under Regulation 9 (1) the appointment from the Select List is to be made only in the order in which the names of the State Civil Service Officers appear on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government. Accordingly, Central Government notified the officers whose names appeared at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 of the Select List for their appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. On account of the fact that without making the appointment of the appellant who was at Serial No. 9, the Central Government did not act on the recommendation made by the State Government for appointment of the State Civil Service Officers whose names appeared at Serial Nos. 10 and 11. By communication dated 2/08/1986, the Central Government desired to know the factual position as to why the name of the appellant was not recommended. Central Government wanted to know if there had occurred any deterioration in the performance of the appellant after his name was included in the Select List which, rendered him unsuitable for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service and if that was so the State Government might consult the Commission as provided in Regulation 9 (2) of the Regulation. In the communication it was also mentioned that if any charges of grave lapse in the conduct and performance of duties on the part of the appellant had been established, then the State Government might request the Commission along with full facts of the case for holding a special review of the Select List so that the name of the appellant might be removed therefrom as provided in second proviso to Regulation 7 (4) of the Regulation. It was pointed out that officers junior to the appellant in the Select List could be appointed only after either the appellant was also appointed or his name was deleted from the Select List. 4 vacancies including the vacancy against which the appellant was included in the 1986 Select List were carried over to 1987 Select List and the following officers had been included against these 4 vacancies in 1987 Select List. JUDGEMENT_304_1_1999Html1.htm
(3.) SINCE the name of the appellant was not forwarded to the Central Government he approached the Tribunal and by a judgment dated 15/02/1990 the Tribunal directed the State Government to appoint him to the Indian Administrative Service on the basis of 1987 Select List. The appellant, it would appear, filed a review petition before the Tribunal praying for a direction that he be promoted on the basis of the Select List of 1986. The Tribunal rejected this review petition by order dated 19/04/1990. C. A. 1092 of 1992 is against that order of the Tribunal passed on review petition of the appellant.;