IMPORTANT POINT
When the selection rules do not prescribe any restrictive criteria, such criteria cannot be imposed.

Headnote:(a) Service Law - Promotion - Though an employee does not have right to be promoted; he has a limited right of being considered for promotion This right cannot be denied. (Para 17)
        (1991) 3 SCC 47 - Relied upon
        (b) I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 - Regulation 4 - No provision to forward names of senior most officers only in case of large number of candidates - Imposing such restriction is unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. (Para 18)
       Facts of the case:
        This appeal is concerning the right of the appellant for being considered for the selection into the Indian Administrative Services (IAS) from the Non-civil services in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
        The appellant, an Asstt. Sales Tax Commissioner, was not taken into zone of consideration for promotion to IAS. Aggrieved, she filed an OA before CAT.
        CAT did not grant the interim relief and appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
        The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGEMENT

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave Granted.

2. We will first deal with the facts and legal submissions of the first SLP (C) 23761 of 2011. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 32290/2010, dismissing the same. The said Writ Petition sought to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad, dated 20.12.2010, on the Interim Application moved by the appellant in her Original Application No. 1291/2010, wherein, the CAT rejected the said Interim Application.

Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

3. The appeal is concerning the right of the appellant for being considered for the selection into the Indian Administrative Services (IAS) from the Non-civil services in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The selection into the IAS is governed by the All India Services Act 1951, and IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954. There are three sources for being selected into the IAS as per the IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954. They are:- (i) by direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion of a substantive member of a state civil service and (iii) by selection from amongst those persons who hold gazetted posts in substantive capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, and who are not members of a State Civil Service.

4. The vacancies in the IAS cadre for each particular State are notified by the Central Government. In the present case, we are concerned with the three vacancies meant for category (iii) above viz. the officers of Non State Civil Services, which were notified for the year 2011. The case of the appellant is that, though she was eligible for being taken into the panel for consideration, she lost her opportunity due to the erroneous interpretation of the relevant rules by the respondent No. 1, State of Andhra Pradesh. At the relevant time, she was working as the Assistant Commissioner of the Sales Tax, and she satisfied all the eligibility criteria, yet the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Commercial Tax) Department, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, restricted the zone of consideration only to the higher officers amongst the eligible candidates viz., to the Joint and Additional Commissioners of the Commercial Tax Department.

5. The appellant, therefore, filed Original Application No. 1291 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and prayed for the following main reliefs:-

“1.) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare that the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the case of the applicant for being proposed for appointment to I.A.S., in terms of I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 is illegal and is contrary to and violation of Regulation 4 of I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 and is also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2). This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the 5th respondent in not forwarding the name of the applicant to 3rd respondent is illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms NO. 634 dated 24.8.2007 and is also contrary to Regulation No. 4 (1) of I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997.

3). This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare that applicant is entitled to be considered by the Committee (as constituted under Regulation 3) by 2nd respondent for appointment to I.A.S., by selection based on her outstanding merit and ability and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.”

6. The appellant prayed for the interim order which read as follows:-

“In the above circumstances this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to convene the meeting of the Committee and not to consider the case of any other candidate(s) proposed by the 3rd respondent for appointment to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2013 Supreme(SC) 974

IMPORTANT POINT When the selection rules do not prescribe any restrictive criteria, such criteria cannot be imposed.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
When the selection rules do not prescribe any restrictive criteria, such criteria cannot be imposed.