M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors

4. The appointment to the I.A.S. from the State cadre can be made other than the State Civil Service in case an incumbent is having outstanding merit and ability and holds a gazetted post in a substantive capacity and has completed not less than eight years of service in the State Government on the first day of January of the year in which his case is being considered in any post which has been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. The candidates shall not exceed five times the posts proposed to be filled up during the year. An incumbent should not have attained the age of 54 years, as per the Regulations of 1997. Regulation 5 says that a list shall be prepared of the suitable candidates by the Committee after scrutiny of service records and personal interview. The Committee has been defined in Regulation 2(i)(a) which means a Committee as constituted under Regulation 3 of Regulations, 1955. As per the Regulations, the Committee shall be headed by the Chairman of the Commission or if the Chairman fails to attend, by any other Member of the Commission. The Chairman or the Member of the Commission shall preside over the meetings. Regulation 3(3) further says that the absence of a member, other than the Chairman or Member of the Commission, shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Committee if more than half the members of the Committee had attended the meeting. Regulation 3(3) which will have relevant bearing reads as under:

5. In the present case eight vacancies were advertised and the process of recruitment to these vacancies was undertaken. The State Government constituted a Screening Committee for short-listing of the Officers not belonging to the State Civil Service. The Committee was headed by Shri B.S.Patil, Chief Secretary to the Government and four other Members who were the Secretaries to the Government of Karnataka. As per Circular dated 30.3.2002 the Government had directed various Heads of the Department to send a list eligible suitable officers who fulfil the aforesaid eligibility criteria. In pursuance of this circular 79 names were received from different Departments and their cases were scrutinized by the Screening Committee with reference to their records for short-listing the names which could be sent to the Commission for selection to the I.A.S. cadre. Since the number of persons to be considered shall not exceed five times the vacancies proposed to be filled up in that year, therefore, as against eight vacancies 40 candidates were to be short-listed. The Screening Committee short-listed 40 candidates on the basis of the service records out of the 79 candidates whose names were received from different Departments. Besides, the name of one more person was sent to the Selection Committee for selection because of the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, in total names of 41 persons were sent for consideration against eight vacancies. The Selection Committee after scrutinizing the cases and after interviewing 39 candidates selected eight candidates and two candidates remained absent. Though a petition was filed before the Tribunal by one person who was not selected and stay order was obtained that was challenged before the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition and vacated the interim order passed by the Tribunal staying the selection and permitted the selection to be taken to its logical conclusion subject to the condition that the order passed by the Tribunal shall be subject to challenge before this Court. Then one Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court against the order passed by the Division Bench vacating the stay order passed by the Tribunal that Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 23.7.2004. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard by the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the selection of eight selected candidates of the Karnataka cadre to the I.A.S. The Tribunal was of the view that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as per the provisions of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 1955 and the Tribunal further took the view that the selection of eight candidates stood vitiated as a result of mala fide on the part of Shri B.S.Patil, Chief Secretary and Shri Subir Dutta, Member of the Commission who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the selection was not fair and selection was being made in an arbitrary manner. However, the name of two persons who were not short-listed was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no arbitrariness for their non-inclusion. That order was challenged by them before the High Court by filing writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court after examining the matter found that all the grounds raised by the writ petitioners were not sustainable.

20. As a result of our above discussion, we find that there is no merit in these appeals and consequently, the appeals are dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.

Contempt Petition ) No.131 of 2006:

21. In view of the order passed in the civil appeals, we find no merit in the contempt petition and the same is dismissed.