G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) WHETHER a Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') can pass ex parte interim order without complying with the mandate of proviso to Section 24 of the Act is the main question which arises for determination in these petitions filed for quashing of the order dated 1.1.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter described as 'the Tribunal) vide which it stayed the appointments of the petitioners and proforma respondents to the Indian Administrative Service.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and proforma respondents are holding substantive appointments in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). Their cases were considered by the Selection Committee constituted under the Regulation Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, 'the Regulations') in December, 2000 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Union Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) issued notification dated 3.1.2001 under Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations notifying the appointment of the petitioners and proforma respondents. On the following day i.e. 4.1.2001. the Government of India issued another notification under Rule 8(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Rules') read with Regulation 9 of the Regulations and Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 vide which the selected candidates were appointed to the Indian Administrative Service on probation. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Act questioning the constitution of the Selection Committee and the recommendations made by it. She also applied for stay of the appointments of the selected candidates. On 1.1.2001, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and stayed the appointments of the petitioners and pro -form a respondents. Six of the non -applicants (most of whom are petitioners in C.W.P. No. 4927 -CAT of 2001) filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal on 12.1.2001 for vacation of the ex parte stay order. The same was registered as M.A. No. 72 of 2001. After 3 days, petitioner -R.S. Doon filed M.A. No. 73 of 2001 for placing on record copies of notifications dated 3.1.2001 and 4.1.2001 . He also averred that in pursuance of these notifications, the selected candidates have joined. On 22.1.2001, M.A. No. 108 of 2001 was filed on behalf of the Government of Haryana for vacation of ex parte interim order on the ground that the selected candidates have submitted joining reports in pursuance of the notification dated 4.1.2001 and continuance of the interim order was adversely affecting the official work. Likewise, a miscellaneous application was filed on 24.1.2001 by the Government of India for placing on record the copies of notifications dated 3.1.2001 and 4.1.2001 with a prayer that the Tribunal may give direction about further course of action. The common strain of the case set up by the petitioners, the Government of India and the Government of Haryana was that the notifications dated 3.1.2001 and 4.1.2001 had been issued by the Government of India before the communication of order dated 1.1.2001 and the selected candidates had submitted joining reports. They also averred that the stay of the appointments to the Indian Administrative Service was highly detrimental to the public interest and the interest of service and that the applicant (respondent No. 2 herein) was not going to suffer irreparable injury if the selected candidates were allowed to take charge. The applicant (respondent No. 2 herein) filed replies to some of these applications in which she pleaded for continuation of the interim order.
(3.) IN the writ petition, it has been averred that despite repeated requests, the Tribunal has failed 10 decide the application filed for vacation of the interim order and the case is being adjourned from time to time on the pretext of the non -filing of written statements by the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal) and in this manner, they were being deprived of their legitimate right to take charge of the posts in the Indian Administrative Service. They have referred to the order dated 13.12.2000 passed in M.A. No. 1345 of 2000 (in O.A. No. 874 of 2000, Abhay Singh v. Union of India and others and the order dated 16.3.2001 passed in O.A. No. 209 of 2001, Mohan Lal Kaushik v. Union of India and others to show that in other cases involving challenge to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the Tribunal has declined to stay the appointments, but without considering the relevant factors and the mandate of Section 24, it granted ex parte interim order which is being continued from time to time.;