The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendations of the Selection Committee can only be challenged on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory Rules.

A. K. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

( 2 ) ALL these appeals arise against the common order dated 6. 10. 2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka while disposing of a bunch of petitions arising out of the common order dated 4. 10. 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal by the aforesaid order set aside the recommendations of the Selection Committee to fill up 8 vacancies belonging to the non-State Civil Service officers of Government of Karnataka to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of Karnataka cadre on the ground of mala fides, arbitrariness and also on the ground that the Selection Committee without application of mind had awarded marks to the selected candidates in a discriminatory manner. It was also held by the Tribunal that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as per the provisions of Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulations of 1955 ). Out of the bunch of petitions which were filed before the karnataka High Court, two petitions were filed by the Union Public service Commission ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Commission), first is that the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Shri Subir Dutta, member, U. P. S. C. against whom the allegation of mala fide was leveled and it was upheld by the Tribunal, second one challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner and awarded marks to the selected candidates. Another batch of petitions (seven in number) was filed by the selected candidates whose names were recommended for appointment to the I. A. S. and two writ petitions were filed by the persons who were not short-listed by the screening Committee. Hence, all these petitions were clubbed together and were disposed of by the common order as aforesaid.

( 3 ) LEARNED Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court after hearing all the parties found that the allegation of mala fide leveled against Shri Subir Dutta, Member of the Commission was not well founded, that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and the Committee did not act in arbitrary or discriminatory manner while awarding the marks to the selected candidates. Hence the order of the Tribunal was set aside. Aggrieved against this order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 6. 10. 2005, the present appeals were filed by the aggrieved persons. Hence, the appeals have now finally come up before us for disposal.

( 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