JUDGEMENT
R.BANUMATHI, J. -
(1.) These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of 2007 in and by which the High Court set aside the
order of the Tribunal and directed the appellants and Union of India
(DoPT) to convene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the
promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the
year 2004 and promote the first respondent herein to the IAS from
the date when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential
benefits.
(2.) Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:- A meeting of the Selection Committee for promotion to the IAS
of Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004 was held on 18.12.2004
against three vacancies as determined by the Central Government.
The name of the first respondent was considered by the said
Committee along with the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The
position in the Eligibility List (EL), Selection List (SL) and the overall
relative assessment (ORA) as assigned by the Selection Committee
in respect of the first respondent vis-a-vis that of the officers
included in the Select List are as under:-
JUDGEMENT_48_LAWS(SC)11_2019.html
The first respondent was duly considered for promotion in the year 2004 and assessed as "Good" for that year. However, on the basis of overall relative assessment, the first respondent's name could not be included in the Select List of 2004 due to lower grading and also due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were included in the Select List have been appointed by the Government of India by Notification dated 29.04.2005.
(3.) Aggrieved by his non-appointment to the IAS, the first respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The said application
was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2007 holding
that the first respondent's name was included by the State
Government in the list of officers eligible for consideration for the
year 2004 and accordingly, the Selection Committee considered the
first respondent's ACRs and made a relative assessment of all the
officers under consideration. The Tribunal pointed out that the
Selection Committee makes its own assessment on the basis of
entries made in the various columns and after discussion within the
Committee, finally arrives at a classification "Outstanding", "Very
Good", "Good" and "Unfit" to be assigned to an officer. Finding no
irregularity by the Selection Committee in making the relative
assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the first
respondent. The first respondent then filed review application in RA
No.27 of 2007 in OA No.749 of 2006 seeking review of the
Tribunal's order dated 31.08.2007 and the said review petition came
to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.