K.M. Joseph, J.

Common questions having arisen in these Writ Petitions, we are disposing of the same by this common Judgment.

2. The controversy relates to the selection to the Indian Administrative Service in relation to two vacancies arising in respect of non civil service Officers. WP(C).NO.15987/2010 (FACTS):

Petitioner was the applicant in OA.No.184/2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter called the Regulations) reads as follows: "4. State Government to send proposals for consideration of the Committee :

(1) The State Government shall consider the case of a person not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in connection with the affairs of the State who,

i) is of outstanding merit and ability; and

ii) holds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity; and

iii) has completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under 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 and propose the person for consideration of the Committee. The number of persons proposed for consideration of the Committee shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies proposed to be filled during the year:

Provided that the State Government shall not consider the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for the consideration of the Committee.

Provided also that the State Government shall not consider the case of a person who, having been included in an earlier Select List, has not been appointed by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of regulation 9 of these Regulations."

It is in terms of this Regulation that the Government of Kerala sent a proposal for consideration of the Committee which is the Committee constituted under the Regulations. This was done vide Annexure R5(6) dated 23.11.2009. Among the recomendees are respondents 5, 6 and 7. Petitioner was not recommended by the State. Petitioner was working as the Additional Director of Soil Survey. Apparently, in the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 26.9.2009. Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the same. He filed W.P.(C).No.30752/2009. In the same, this Court directed the Appellate Authority to take a decision. The Appellate Authority decided to revoke the suspension of the petitioner by order dated 26.11.2009 and to reinstate him into service pending disciplinary action and without prejudice to the merits of the case and to post him on deputation basis as Managing Director of the Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium. Petitioner thereupon filed W.P. (C).No.33375/09. Therein, an interim order dated 30.11.2009 came to be passed, directing the State of Kerala to include the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the list of eligible candidates for selection to IAS (2009 -2010) and to forward the list to the Government of India. It is made clear in the interim order that it was to be subject to the further orders in the Writ Petition. We notice that it is, inter alia, stated by the learned Single Judge that in view of the order dated 26.11.2009 by which the petitioner's suspension was revoked and so far no memo of charges had been issued to him, the reason for his exclusion cannot survive any more, prima facie. Thereupon, the Selection committee proceeded to consider the claims of the eleven candidates. The deliberations of the Selection Committee culminated in the respondents 5 to 7 being ranked above the petitioner, that is to say, the fifth respondent was placed in the first position, the sixth respondent was placed in the second position, the seventh respondent was placed in the third position and the petitio