2014 (3) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of High Court order - Whether restriction of the candidates to be considered, who were otherwise eligible, was permissible under IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954 Violation of Regulation 4(1) of I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Held that - Once a candidate comes into the zone of consideration and satisfies all the requirements he cannot be told that merely because he is junior in the seniority, his name will not be forwarded for consideration - The rule requires that from amongst the outstanding officers, 15 names are to be forwarded to the Central Government, and hence it is possible that amongst these 15, a junior officer may as well figure, depending upon the assessment of his merit - He cannot be eliminated merely on the ground that he is a junior officer, and that if selected he will write the ACRs of his superiors. If the rules for selection contain a requirement, the same has to be applied uniformly and strictly, and none from the eligible group can be eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than those which are provided in the rules - If there is a criteria laid down for selection, the Administration has to confine to the same, and it cannot impose an additional criterion over and above whatever has been laid down - If that is done, it will no longer remain an exercise of discretion, but will result into discrimination - It will mean treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and denying equal opportunity to some of them in the matter of public employment on the basis of a criterion which is not laid down, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India - If the rules were to provide that in the event of large number of persons coming into the zone of consideration, the names of the senior most alone will be forwarded, then it would have been a different situation - In the absence any such restrictive rule, the decision of the respondents cannot be justified. The appellant is entitled to such a positive declaration Appeal allowed, set-aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as of the Central Administrative Tribunal, modify the relief as prayed in the O.A., and hold that the decision of the Respondents not to consider the appellant for the selection, amounted to her being treated dissimilarly, though she was situated similarly to the recommended officers - The decision was violative of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution - However, the selection for the year 2011 was over, even before the interim application in the CAT was decided - Setting aside the selection conducted some two years back, and asking the respondents to re-do the exercise after considering the appellant and other similarly situated candidates, would create lot of uncertainty, in as much as the appellant and such other similarly situated candidates, might or might not finally succeed in the selection process - Hence, it will not be proper now to set aside the selection of the selected candidates - Therefore, though this declaration is being granted, viz. that the appellant and persons situated like her were entitled to be considered by the committee, no further relief in that behalf can be granted to them - The opinion rendered by us will have to operate prospectively in the matter of application of the concerned rules, for the future selections. The non-consideration of her claim was totally unjust - because the CCT had acted to reduce the zone of consideration, contrary to the rules, and inspite of a letter dated 1.7.2010 from the Principal Secretary Revenue (CT-I) Department, which had clarified that the Commissioner may send the proposals of the eligible candidates of the cadre of ACs and above, who were of outstanding merit - The award of damages is necessary also because, a message must go down that those who are responsible for administration of the State cannot trample upon the rights of others on the grounds which are unsustainable in law - State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to pay the damages of rupees fifty thousand to the appellant additional to the litigation cost of rupees twenty five thousand Decided partly in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Selection into IAS from Non-Civil Services
2. Interpretation of IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997
3. Restriction of Zone of Consideration by the State Government
4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India
5. Award of Damages for Non-Consideration

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Selection into IAS from Non-Civil Services:
The appellant challenged the restriction imposed by the State of Andhra Pradesh that limited the zone of consideration for IAS selection to higher officers, thereby excluding her despite meeting all eligibility criteria. The appellant was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and satisfied the eligibility criteria under the IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954 and IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997.

2. Interpretation of IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997:
The relevant regulations for selection into IAS from Non-Civil Services include Regulation 3 and Regulation 4. Regulation 3 deals with determining the number of vacancies, while Regulation 4 outlines the criteria for the State Government to propose candidates. The appellant argued that she met all the criteria specified in Regulation 4, including holding a Gazetted post, completing more than 8 years of continuous service, and not exceeding the age limit of 54 years.

3. Restriction of Zone of Consideration by the State Government:
The State Government restricted the zone of consideration to Joint and Additional Commissioners, excluding Assistant Commissioners like the appellant. This restriction was justified by the State on the grounds of managing a large number of eligible candidates and maintaining a hierarchy where junior officers would not oversee their superiors. The High Court upheld this restriction, but the Supreme Court found that such a restriction was not permissible under the rules, as it imposed an additional criterion not laid down in the regulations.

4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was treated dissimilarly to other eligible candidates, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that all eligible candidates should be considered based on the criteria laid down in the regulations, without imposing additional restrictions. The decision to exclude the appellant was deemed discriminatory and contrary to the principles of equal opportunity in public employment.

5. Award of Damages for Non-Consideration:
The Court recognized the unjust treatment of the appellant and awarded damages of fifty thousand rupees along with litigation costs of twenty-five thousand rupees. The Court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay these amounts and allowed the State to recover the costs from the responsible officers, including the then Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The decision underscored the need for accountability in administrative decisions and the protection of individuals' rights against arbitrary actions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court declared that the appellant and similarly situated candidates were entitled to be considered for IAS selection based on the prescribed criteria. However, due to the completion of the selection process for the year 2011, the Court did not order a re-selection but directed the State to apply the correct interpretation of the regulations prospectively. The award of damages and costs was a significant aspect of the judgment, highlighting the need for just and lawful administrative actions.