- (1.) IN this rather voluminous writ petition, ultimate analysis reveals that at least one issue is concluded in favour of the petitioner by the recent enunciation of the law in Union of India v. M. L. Capoor MANU/sc/0405/1973. As this writ petition must succeed on that narrow issue, we deem it wasteful to adjudicate upon a variety of points diffusely raised by the petitioner, in person, before us, in a rather longwinded argument. It suffices, therefore, to advert only to those facts which are directly relevant to what is now the primary question.
(2.) MR. Muni Lal Trighatia, petitioner, had served a tenure of nearly two decades in the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch) when by way of a mutual exchange of service (duly approved by the Central Government) with another officer Shri B. S. Malik, he was allocated to the State of Haryana in May, 1971. The petitioner at the material time was a permanent selection grade officer in the Punjab Civil Service. It is the common case that for the purpose of promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, the petitioner is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (hereinafter called the Regulation ).
(3.) BY virtue of Regulation 3, a Selection Committee is constituted to frame a select list from amongst the members of the State Civil Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. This Committee consists of six senior Central and State civil servants. On 2nd December, 1971, a meeting of the above-said Selection Committee was held at Chandigarh and the petitioner's name along with others was brought on the select list prepared under Regulation 7 for the purpose of subsequent appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. His name figured at serial No. 6 but during the whole of the year 1972, the petitioner's name was not recommended for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as the service) though the five persons above him in the list were duly promoted to the said service. It is the petitioner's grievance that a number of vacancies arose during this period and even though some of them remained unfilled, he was not recommended to be appointed against such posts.;