N R YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who was one of the senior members of Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS, for short), was selected for appointment on promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS, for short) by the Selection Committee which held its meeting at Jaipur on 23.01.95. He is aggrieved on account of the denial by the respondents to promote him and the inaction exhibited by them in his matter. THE applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal by means of the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, claiming the relief that the circular No. 14015/54/95-AIS(I) dated 12thJanuary, 1996, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, be quashed as being against the statutory provisions and the respondent No. 2, State of Rajasthan, be directed to appoint him in IAS from the select-list dated 23.01.95, hereinafter referred to as 1995 select-list.

(2.) The promotion of the members of the State Civil Service to IAS is governed by the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (hereinafter called "Promotion Regulations"). It is an indubitable fact that the Committee to make selection as contemplated under Regulation 3 was constituted for the purpose of promotion to Rajasthan Cadre of IAS for the period 1994-95 and its meeting was held at Jaipur on 23.01.95. The select-list prepared by the Selection Committee was duly approved by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) on 16th March, 1995 pursuant to the provisions of Promotion Regulation 7(2). The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T, for short), issued a letter dated 22.03.1995 (Annexurc A/1), which indicates that 19 officers from the RAS were selected for appointment on promotion to IAS cadre of Rajaslhan. The name of the applicant finds place at serial No. 19. The names of the applicant as well as Shri G.L. Verma (shown at Sl. No. 6) were included in the selectlist "provisionally" subject to clearance of the departmental enquiries pending against them. It is common case of the parties that the departmental enquiries which were initiated against the present applicant as well as Shri G.L. Verma terminated in their favour. The officers, who occupied their respective positions in the select-list from Sl. No. 1 to 16, including Shri G.L. Verma, whose name was included provisionally, have been appointed to IAS. S/Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain and S.S. Rajvi and the present applicant, Shri Naranga Ram Yadav (SC), were not appointed within a period of twelve months commencing from the date of the meeting of the Selection Committee, i.e., 23.01.95. Shri S.S. Rajvi, who was shown at Sl. No. 18, filed O.A. No. 304 of 1996 before this Bench in which certain interim orders were passed. It is not disputed that "no deterioration" certificates in respect of Shri R.K. Jain (at Sl. No. 17) and Shri S.S. Rajvi (at Sl. No. 38), were issued pursuant to the order dated 05.11.99 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 304/1996. It is common case of the parlies that both of them have been appointed to IAS. Thus, the applicant who is the last person in the select-list has been left out and process for his promotion to IAS has not been initiated after completing the requisite formalities. The applicant, it appears, made a representation to the Secretary, DOP&T, Government of India, New Delhi, an undated copy of which is Annexure A/2. It did not evoke any response and this is how the applicant is before us for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) ON behalf of Union of India, respondent No. 1, a detailed reply has been filed which is prefaced by the submission that since Union of India had acted only in accordance with the rules on the subject, as clarified in circular No. 14015/54/95/AIS (I) dated 12.01.96, no injustice was meant to be done to the applicant. It is maintained that the grievance of the applicant against non-promotion to IAS cadre from the 1995 select-list, in which his name was not included against any substantive vacancies anticipated in the cadre during the period of twelve months of the meeting of the Selection Committee is not governed by the extant rules and regulations on the subject. The reply further went to the stale that the number of substantive vacancies which were reckoned by the Selection Committee for the period of next twelve months, was 16 only; the number of persons to be included in the select-list was computed as 19 by virtue of the provisions contained in Regulation 5 (1), by adding 20% of the vacancies as waiting list part of the select-list. Thus, according to the respondent No. 1, the select-list was prepared for filling up only 16 substantive vacancies in the promotion quota of State cadre during the period from 23.01.95 to 22.01.96 and the officers, whose names appeared at serial Nos. 17, 18 and 19 were included towards filling up of any unforeseen/fortuitous vacancies that might arise in the State cadre during the relevant period due to voluntary retirement of a senior promotee officer ahead of his normal superannuation/sudden demise of such an officer, or due to upward revision of the promotion quota during the currency of the select-list on account of any cadre review that might take place at the instance of the State Government under the Rules. It has further been pleaded that the name of the applicant was included in the list "provisionally" subject to i'inal outcome of the disciplinary proceedings then pending against him. It is asserted that in terms of the second proviso of Rule 9(1), the applicant could not be considered for promotion to IAS unless and until his name was made "unconditional" in the select-list by the UPSC, on the recommendation of the State Government after the close of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. It is further explained that the applicant could have been considered for appointment against the third unforeseen/fortuitous vacancy that might have arisen in the State cadre during the relevant period, but since no such vacancy arose during the relevant period, he could not be appointed. It has been clarified that S/Shri G.L. Verma (at Sl. No, 6) and K.P. Singal (at Sl. No. 12), were actually appointed on promotion to IAS only by virtue of their position and placement in the 1995 select-list though the deemed date of their appointment was changed. The vacancy that accrued on 31.01.96, i.e., within a period of twelve months of the date of meeting of the Selection Committee, was utilised for the appointment of Shri Keshri Singh, another RAS officer, who was included in the 1993 select-list by the Review Selection Committee for Rajaslhan pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The right of the applicant for seeking appointment to IAS merely because his name finds place in the select-list has been denied primarily on the ground that no fortuitous/unforeseen vacancy became available to me applicant within twelve months of the commencement of the 1995 select-list.