G.Mohanasundaram vs R.Nanthagopal And Ors

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

4. On 1st September, 2009, the State of Tamil Nadu prepared a list of 27 eligible candidates for consideration for appointment against 19 vacancies of IAS for the year 2009. The list was sent to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UPSC”). The name of the appellant was included at serial No.26 and the name of the 1st respondent was placed at serial No.16 of the said list prepared on the basis of seniority list of the State Civil Service. In the seniority list of State Civil Service the appellant was placed at serial No.59 and 1st respondent at serial No.34.

5. On 4th November, 2009, the State Government issued a charge-sheet against the 1st respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for certain irregularities committed by him while working as Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. On 3rd February, 2011, the State Government prepared a list of 10 eligible candidates for appointment to the IAS cadre against the 2009 vacancies. The appellant was shown at serial No.9 and 1st respondent at serial No.4. The list was forwarded to the UPSC.

6. On 10th March, 2011, the UPSC sought for clarifications and some more information from the State Government. By its letter dated 12th April, 2011, the State Government enclosed the Annual Character Rolls (ACRs) of all the eligible candidates, which according to the State Government were valid. The State Government withheld some of the ACRs of certain candidates including the 1st respondent on the ground that the ACRs were not valid. The ACRs of the 1st respondent pertaining to the period 27th July, 1998 to 10th June, 2002 i.e., for 5 years alone, were forwarded to the UPSC and the ACRs of the 1st respondent for the period from 10th June, 2002 to 31st March, 2009 were withheld by the State.

7. On 7th December, 2011, the State Government forwarded a list of 13 candidates for promotion to the IAS cadre against 2 vacancies for the year 2010. The appellant was shown at serial No.8 and the 1st respondent at serial No.4. The ACRs of all the candidates including the 1st respondent for the period 26th May, 2006 to 7th January, 2008 were forwarded.

8. The Selection Committee prepared a Select List of 2009 and 2010 on 27th December, 2011 against the respective vacancies of those years. The appellant was not selected. According to the appellant, though his ACRs were far better than the ACRs of other candidates including 1st respondent, he was not selected.

10. The appellant having not selected/promoted filed Original Application No.249 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench challenging the notification 10th February, 2012 passed by the Government of India. When the matter was pending, on 15th March, 2012 the State Government dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent taking into consideration the enquiry report and reply filed by the 1st respondent. By an amendment application filed in pending OA, the appellant challenged the notification of 13th April, 2012, by which 1st respondent was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service. The UPSC, State Government and 1st respondent filed their respective replies to which the appellant filed a rejoinder. According to the UPSC, the selection was made in accordance with the rules and the valid ACRs which were forwarded by the State Government. The State Government in its reply justified its action in sending only the valid ACRs and the 1st respondent disputed the allegation made against him.

11. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by its judgment and order dated 18th February, 2013 allowed the Original Application filed by the appellant, quashed the notification dated 10th February, 2012 in so far as not including the name of the appellant herein and quashed the notification dated 13th April, 2012 by which 1st respondent was appointed.

12. The High Court at the instance of the 1st respondent allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA No.249 of 2012.

21. Regulation 6 relates to consultation with UPSC. As per the said Regulation the list prepared in accordance with Regulation 5 is required to be forwarded to the UPSC by the State Government along with records of all members of the State Civil Service included in the list.

28. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated 18th February, 2013 rightly held that the Selection Committee has not taken into account all relevant facts and records to come to a conclusion that the 1st respondent is superior to appellant.

32. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013, upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18th February, 2013 with direction to the respondent(s) to reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies for the year 2009A. If necessary, a fresh Selection Committee or a Review Committee shall be constituted and reconvened. The process of selection be completed within three months. The order passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent above.

33. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.