W.P(C) No.406/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.406/2009 % Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 S.Puttaswamy …. Petitioner Through Mr.Anilendra Pandey, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors …. Respondents Through Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) * Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent No.2 has produced the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1995 for preparation of yearwise list of members of the State service of Karnataka for promotion W.P(C) No.406/2009 Page 2 of 4 to Indian Administrative Services. From the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee for 2005, it is evident that the candidates were assessed on the basis of their service record and on the basis of their overall relative assessment, the merit list was drawn up. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd July, 2008. The petitioner appears to have been graded according to his service records for the past five years. There were only six vacancies and other candidates with the same grading as that of the petitioner, but who were senior to the petitioner had been selected. In the circumstances, non selection of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The procedure followed by the selection committee in its meeting appears to be in accordance with Regulation 5(4) of the promotion regulations. The grading of the officers for 2005, including the petitioner is, as detailed by the Tribunal in paras 25 to 27 of the order dated 3rd July, 2008 which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner was not eligible for consideration for 2003 and 2004 and therefore, cannot contend that some of the candidates for those years had criminal cases pending against them and therefore, ought not to be considered. In any event, the petitioner could not have been considered against the vacancies of 2003 and 2004 as he was not eligible in those years. The Tribunal had noted that as per records W.P(C) No.406/2009 Page 3 of 4 furnished by the State Government no criminal/disciplinary proceedings were pending against the officers and integrity certificates had been furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show anything to the contrary so as seek interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. The plea of the petitioner that he ought to have been graded `outstanding' on account of his three ACRs having grading of `Outstanding' is also misconceived. The grading by the selection committee for the purpose of assessing the relative merit was not based only on the grading in the ACRs, but on the service records. On the basis of the service record the petitioner was graded ` Very Good' and he cannot be allowed to contend that he should have been graded `Outstanding' by the selection Committee as well. From the record produced by the respondents, none of the pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner is made out. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference with the order of Tribunal dated 3rd July, 2008. The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore, dismissed The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the W.P(C) No.406/2009 Page 4 of 4 Tribunal by its order dated 3rd July, 2008 had directed the respondent no.3, State of Karnataka, to consider the representation that may be made by the petitioner to the `average' report of the applicant, and to take an appropriate decision thereon. Since the order of the Tribunal has not been interfered with by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, he shall be entitled to seek implementation of the said direction. With these directions, this petition stands disposed off. ANIL KUMAR, J. DECEMBER 10, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. k