JEET LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions, SWP No. 1950/2003, Jeet Lal Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., and SWP No. 96/2004, M. Yamin Qureshi & another v. State of J&K & Ors., have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 29th September, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in TA Nos.66 -JK/2002 and 18 -JK/2003, dismissing the above two TA petitions.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Jeet Lal Gupta, writ petitioner in SWP No. 1950/2003, acting on the news items appearing two newspapers, namely, Himalayan Mail and Kashmir Times in their issues dated Ist February, 2003 and 7th February, 2003 respectively, that Government of India was likely to induct State Civil Service Officers into Indian Administrative Service, filed writ petition, SWP No. 164/2003 before this Court. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought a restraint against the respondents prohibiting them from implementing the decision, if any, taken for making induction into the latest Indian Administrative Service Promotion quota vacancies. The challenge, ostensibly, was to the Select List of 2002 on the ground that the Selection Committee did not record any reasons in excluding his name and including the names of Junior Officers in the Select List. The writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 10th February, 2003 when it was transferred to the Tribunal for disposal.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the contention of Jeet Lal Gupta was that two officers, namely, K. B. Jandial and G. A. Peer, had been included in the Select List ignoring his well -founded claim for induction into Indian Administrative Service by the Selection Committee, though, according to the petitioner, the aforesaid two officers were junior to the petitioner with comparatively lower merit. The petitioner pleaded that he had a preferential claim for induction into Indian Administrative Service on the basis of his seniority, ability, merit, suitability and outstanding record of service. He called in question the decision of the Selection Committee in this regard on the ground of being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. His other contention before the Tribunal was that he was promoted to the Special Grade of Kashmir Administrative Service in the State in January 1999 and was also in the consideration zone for promotion to the Suppertime Scale, as his performance for 1994 -95 was "outstanding". His case was that he had been ignored from being inducted into Indian Administrative Service without assigning any reason by the Selection Committee. He contended that the Selection Committee did not take a judicious view and, rather, a discriminatory treatment was meted out to him by ignoring his seniority, merit, suitability and his outstanding performance all along.