9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of vacancies for multiple years in the preparation of the select list for promotion. 2. Compliance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. 3. Eligibility and consideration of State Civil Service officers for promotion. 4. Adjustment of appointments made from the impugned select list. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Clubbing of Vacancies for Multiple Years: The primary issue in this appeal was whether it is permissible to club vacancies of multiple years while preparing the select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from the State Civil Service. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, held that such clubbing is not permissible and that separate select lists should be prepared by the Selection Committee for each year. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which mandates annual preparation of the select list. 2. Compliance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955: The relevant provisions of Regulation 5, as in force from 1980 to 1986, were examined. Regulation 5(1) required the Selection Committee to meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of suitable members for promotion. The list should not include more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated for the next twelve months. Regulation 5(2) mandated considering eligible officers in the order of seniority, and Regulation 5(6) required the list to be reviewed and revised annually. The court concluded that the requirement for the Selection Committee to meet annually and prepare the list was mandatory, and failure to comply with this requirement was a violation of the regulations. 3. Eligibility and Consideration of State Civil Service Officers for Promotion: The respondent, a member of the Gujarat Administrative Service Class I since 1967, was not considered for promotion in the 1979 select list as he fell outside the zone of consideration. No select list was prepared between 1980 and 1986, and a consolidated list was prepared in December 1986/January 1987. The Tribunal found that the clubbing of vacancies from 1980 to 1986 enlarged the zone of consideration and could have prejudiced the respondent. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Selection Committee should have prepared separate lists for each year, considering officers eligible as of January 1 of each respective year. 4. Adjustment of Appointments Made from the Impugned Select List: The court addressed the issue of adjusting appointments made based on the impugned select list of December 1986/January 1987. It was directed that State Civil Service officers appointed from this list who were senior to the respondent should be adjusted against vacancies determined on a year-wise basis from 1980 to 1986. If vacancies remained unfilled after such adjustment, notional select lists should be prepared for those years, considering all eligible officers. If the respondent's name appeared in these notional lists and he was entitled to a vacancy, he should be appointed with all consequential benefits. However, appointments already made based on the 1986/1987 select list would not be disturbed. Conclusion: The court upheld the Tribunal's judgment that the respondent is entitled to fresh consideration for promotion based on annual vacancies. The court provided specific directions to ensure compliance with the regulations while protecting the appointments already made. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
