AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions involve common question of fact and law and are directed against order of the ld.Central Administrative Tribunal dt.04.04.2013, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THIS court can take a judicial notice that perpetual rivalry for seniority and promotion are two salient conditions of service which the officer during the time of his induction remains with the pragmatic view that he will get his promotion and consequential seniority in terms of the service Rules regulating his service conditions but the fact is that these two are on going disputes in service jurisprudence and despite the provisions of the scheme of Rules/Regulations being interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Courts from time to time, still such disputes could not be settled since long.
(3.) IN the instant writ petitions, multiple grievances have been raised by the group of officers for our consideration but primarily the question for consideration is that whether in terms of R.8(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the Officer is to be a substantive member of State Civil Service on the date of meeting of the selection committee or on first day of January of the year of substantive vacancy against which candidature of the officer has to be considered for appointment by promotion to IAS under Rules, 1954 read with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Brief facts of the case are that the appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (Promotion Quota) under the scheme of Rules, 1954 could not be held for a sufficient long period of 16 years to be specific for the vacancies of the period 1996 -97 to 2011 and seniority list was finalized on 11.09.2011, the selection committee held its meeting on 26.12.2012 and after determining the vacancies of each year, considered the eligible Officers who were member of State Civil Service in terms of R.8(1) of the Rules, 1954 and falling in the zone of consideration as contemplated u/Reg.5(2) of the Reg.1955 against three times of the number of vacancies and the officers who were found to be suitable were placed in the approved select list prepared separately for each year by the committee, indisputably for the years in question i.e. from 1996 -97 to 2011 but when the stage came for their appointment obviously good number of officers stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on the date of meeting of the committee i.e. 26.12.2012, thus appointments were notified of such of the officers vide notification dt.31.12.2012 who were substantive member of service on the date of meeting of the committee i.e. on 26.12.2012 and at the same time appointments of other officers are withheld on the premise that such officers are not substantive member of State Civil Service on the date of meeting of the selection committee i.e. on 26.12.2012, which was basically a grievance in different form by the interested parties, brought to notice by filing Original Application before the ld.Central Administrative Tribunal.;