IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16288 of 2005 Date of decision : 28-04-2009 Union of India .....Petitioner H.R. Ganger & another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present : Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Arjun Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner-Union of India, herein, has challenged the order dated 01-06-2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which the direction was issued to the petitioner to take necessary steps for appointment of respondent No.1 to the IAS by issuance of necessary notification within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order dated 01-06-2005. Meanwhile, CWP No.15410-CAT of 2005 was filed challenging another order dated 18-08-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide C.W.P. No. 16288 of 2005 -2- which the petitioner-Union of India was directed to complete selection process for appointment to IAS for the year 2001 onwards within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Vide separate order of this Court, the record of the writ petition No.15410-CAT of 2005 was required to be placed along with the present case. Today, on 28-04-2009, the writ petition No. 15410-CAT of 2005 came up for hearing which was dismissed as infructuous by passing the following order :- “ Counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition has become infructuous because a review meeting has taken place on 25-02-2008, reviewing the appointments to the IAS from the PCS (executive cadre) for the period from 1992-93 to 2006. Accordingly, a notification has been issued in this regard on 04-12-2008. In view of the facts that a fresh review meeting has already taken place, reviewing the case of all the candidates for the aforementioned years, therefore, this writ petition has been rendered as infructuous. Dismissed as having become infructuous.” When the present case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the matter was infructuous to the extent that in the Review meeting which took place on 25-02-2008, the appointments to the IAS from the PCS (executive cadre) for the period from 1992-93 to 2006 have been reviewed and a notification to that effect has been issued on 04-12-2008, wherein, the respondent, in the present case, Mr. Hans Raj Gangar (SC) has been duly appointed from the Review Select List of the year 1998, still, the case of the respondent No.1 C.W.P. No. 16288 of 2005 -3- was different to the extent that he already stood retired and the issue whether the State Civil Service Officers can be considered and inducted by way of promotion to I.A.S, after superannuation from the State Civil Service Officers although the period of superannuation from I.A.S still remains, is yet to be decided. It was further contended that since, the respondent was considered after the amendment of Regulation 9 of the I.A.S (Appointment and Promotion) Regulations, 1955 came into force i.e. on 25-07-2000, the judgment in the case of Chaman Lal Lakhanpal vs. Union of India 1998 (3) SLR 436, on the basis of which, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his case, is not applicable. Taking into the totality of the facts narrated above and the fact that admittedly, the respondent was eligible to be considered for the year 1998 and there was a legal obligation to consider him along with persons within that zone and his name was within the age of 58 years when the U.P.S.C placed his name in the Select list, his right cannot be defeated. Moreover, coupled with the fact that a notification has since been issued on 04-12-2008, in pursuance to which a Review Meeting held on 25-02-2008 vide which the appointments to the I.A.S from the P.C.S (executive cadre) for the period 1992-93 to 2006 have been reviewed and the respondent's name finds figure in the said notification, we are not inclined to interfere. In the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above, we find no ground to interfere in the judgment dated 01-06-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) 28-04-2009 JUDGE gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No