VISHRAM SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant of this O.A. has prayed for quashing the selection held on 30th and 31st October, 2001 after summoning the records of proceedings of selection to the IAS. A further prayer is for issue of directions to the respondents to hold a review meeting for selection in order to consider the applicant for promotion to the IAS after taking into account the entry awarded only by the Reviewing Officer for the year 98-99. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to include the applicant in the eligibility list for vacancies of the years 2001 and 2002 although the applicant had crossed the age of 54 years. A further prayer is for quashing the amendment in Rule 5(1) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 made in the year 1997. Further it is prayed that the respondents be directed to enhance the age from 54 years as at present to 56 years for consideration for promotion to the IAS specially having regard to the enhancement in the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years.

(2.) Pleadings on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) IN so far as the challenge to spliting up in three years of the additional 34 posts created by the Government of INdia is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in O.A. Nos. 3/2000, 257/2000, 269/2000, 52/2000, 25/2001, 121/2001 and 184/2001 which were decided by a common order dated 25.11.2002 in which a finding was recorded by this Tribunal that spliting up of the additional posts in different years was justified as such action of the Government of INdia cannot be termed as illegal. While taking this view, this Tribunal referred to the judgment and order passed earlier by this Tribunal on 27.5.99 in the case of Pradeep Chandra and Ors. v. Union of INdia (O.A. No. 160/98) which was challenged before the Lucknow Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the said writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court was still pending. However, by interim order dated 7.11.2001 passed in W.P. No. 1550 (SB) 2001 by the Hon'ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 160/98 in the case of Pradeep Chandra and Ors. v. VOI, it was directed that the case of the applicants of that O.A, shall be considered only against vacancies of 1998 subject to fulfilment of the required qualifications including the age at the relevant time. Further while upholding the legality of the circulars dated 11.2.98 and 31st December, 1997 in the bunch of O.As. decided on 25th November, 2002 in the case of S.P.S. Chauhan and Ors. v. U.O.I, and Ors. by this Tribunal, reference was also made to the decision of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 203/99 in re Dr. Rajesh Mohan Srivastava v. U.O.I. which involved the same question of spliting up of vacancies in different years in respect of non-State Civil Services officers. Though this O.A. was decided by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in favour of the applicants, the decision was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad (Lko Bench) and Hon'ble High Court in their judgment dated 7th March, 2002 passed in W.P. No. 732/2000, W.P. No. 780/2000 and W.P. No. 1720- (SB) /2000 held that the view expressed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal was not correct. The Hon'ble High Court clearly held that the bifurcation of the posts in different years by the Government of INdia can not be termed as illegal or invalid. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 7th March, 2002 was challenged in SLP No. 13229-13231 (Civil) 2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said SLPs were dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 29th July, 2002. Thus the finding of the Allahabad High Court to the effect that bifurcation of the vacancies in different years has validly been made was in effect affirmed by the Apex Court also. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that spliting up of 34 additional posts in three different years i.e. in 1998, 1999 and 2000 was not called for has to be rejected as unsustainable.