- (1.) HEARD Sri I.B. Singh, assisted by Shri Abdul Moin for the petitioners and Shri Upendra Nath Misra, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi and Shri I.H. Farooqi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties agree that there is no factual dispute , therefore, the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Accordingly we proceed to decide the writ petition at the admission stage. Selection for the posts of I.A.S. cadre is likely to be held in this month preferably on 8.11.2010. Regulation 5 (3) of the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations' ) provides the maximum age limit of 54 years for the members of the State Civil Services for their promotion to the I.A.S. cadre. The provision contained in Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations has been impugned. Before the Tribunal, an application for interim relief was filed which was rejected by the impugned order hence petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the impugned Regulation has been held to be ultra vires and quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Banglore Bench by judgment and order dated 30.11.2009, passed in Original Application Nos. 262 of 2007, 416 of 2007, 447 of 2007 and 88 of 2008. However, the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 has been stayed by the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Savitri MV v. Union of India and Ors.: Writ Petition No. 391137 of 2009 Karnataka High Court had stayed the Tribunal's judgment(supra) by interim order dated 11.2.2010. Feeling aggrieved, some of the petitioners before the Tribunal along with others had filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following interim order: Interim direction to Union Public Service Commission that while considering the list of eligible candidates forwarded by the State Government, the names of petitioners shall also be considered. But in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the sealed cover procedure shall be adopted. It is made clear adoption of sealed cover procedure procedure in the case of petitioners shall not come in the way of any person form the list sent by the State Government being selected or appointed. As the High Court in its impugned order has stated that the writ petition will be listed in the second week of March, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing.;