Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Dr P Boregowda on 24 December, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE IMIIGE--1 COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEI) '1'HIS'I'HE 24'?" DAY OF I)ECEMBE3R, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE IVIRJUSTIOE v.O.sABHAHI_T.__"': 0:7.
AND 'V "
THE H.ON'BLE MRSJUSTICE I8-;\7';'
WRIT PETITION Nos. 1803 ~?£80'6_OF 2010- , '. " "
39137 OF 2009, 322.34 011120 10 8:5"
215 - 222 OF 2010, 39138 OF 2009, .1527_--'1.53'4OF20iO
38702 ~ 38705 OF 2009 & 38751' M 38758 Or" 2009.
38709 9 387}() OF 2009 & 970935 OF 2010
WRIT PETITION NO. 18030808 .
BETWEEN:
THE UNION1.OI?.1NIIm;'I,0 _ --
REPRESENTED BY 1"1'S.SECRE3"ARY,
E)E3PAR'I']VI£3Nf170}?" I->ER"8ONIx;EL 8:
TRAINING. V'
NORTH: BLOCK. ~
" I 10 001;--~ "
{By 8:R1TAIJA_RO_Y* Té.vv='i'RIPATI, ASG.. A/W
AND: '
... PETITIONER
SR; 8'; KALm'1$I.i3AsAVARAJ. ASG . ,)
' i£);R~..,P. BOREGOWDA.
RAGE 56 YEARS.
'WORKING AS CPIIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
V. _ ..ZILLAPANCHIAYATI---E.
SPIIVMOGA.
2. SI"IIV'j\NA,NJAIAH I3.
AGE 57 YEARS,
'WORKING AS CHIEF' EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Z1 LLAPAN C HAYATH .
MADIKBRI .
. S. PUTTASWAMY.
AGE 58 YEARS.
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, .
GIILBARGA DIVISION, , ~ .. ._
GULBARGA. ~
. KR. RAIVIAKRISI-INA,
AGE 57 YEARS, _
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE.OR
SOCIAL SECURITY AND PEN'S..I_OI\IS,
KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETA R'IA'I";
M.S. BUILDINGS. ' I - .
BANGALORE -- 560 00 --
. G.S. SHIVASWAMY, '
AGE 55'YEA_R'S, _ I
EXE_CL.ITIv*E_ D'I1R;ECTOR,_ ' .
KAFNAKAIKZQIRESIDENTUQ. EDUCATIONAL
INS"I%ITI_«II"IONS--« ' '
CFC ELUILDING,"I\IR_UPATI~IUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE A ".360. 00.1
. ST ;fAI\IEES
25? YEARS; ' -------- -A "
G1' «.«CIIIE'R"EIxECUTIvE OFFICER.
zIIpA.NICTI'IAYA*I,
. 'RAICIIJUR.
_ IYIIENDONACA ANTONY.
AGE 58 YEARS.
I PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER
FGRAGRICULTURE,
"V.II7iI~IANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE.
V' V. SRIRAMA REDDY,
AG F3 55 YEARS,
KAS (SUPERTIME SCALE]
10.
II.
12..
.3
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER.
BRUI-IATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
BANGALORE.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
BY ITS SECRETARY.
DHOLPUR HOUSE.
SHAH JAHAN ROAD,
NEW DELHI --~« I10 001.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, V
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,-.__
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, '
3RD FLOOR, VIDI-IANA SOUDHA, _
BANGALORE -A 560 001. "
VEDA MURTHY. , I
S/O VEERA BASAIALI,' I
AGE 56 YEARfs,._ _' ' ' -
ADDL. cO:vIIv1'Is.-IONER.%L
BBMP:w*vI <".l".
RAQIA RAJARA{}ESHCWAR1NACAR ZONE.
RAJARAaEsIIwAII_I1\IAGAR,
BANGALORE 4 98, - "
"B_;.I\/1. ANAGARAJ I V
- S ;*O,_ NANJUND' "
«I AGE' DA,I30._UT 56 YEARS,
GENERAL MANAGER,
_ '~-I;AR1\IAI'AI<;AV-SILK MARKETING BOARD,
. §ViYSOREj,_
',_I3_
OR. N. OHANDRASIIEKAR.
I S / OAIANJAPPA,
A "AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
C' IXNORKING AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
I INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY.
BAN GALORE.
... RESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI B.V. ACHARYA. SR. COUNSEL FOR
SR1 S.V NARASIMHAN. ADV. FOR C/R 4-6,
SRI M.S. 13HAGAVVA'I"H. ADV. FOR C / R M8.
SR1 RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SR1 11. KANTHARAJ. ADV. FOR C /R -- 3.1 & I
SRI11.S. JOIS. SR. COUNESEL FOR --- 1. -
SMT. B.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI. ADV. FOR C/R547', O
SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA. AGA 1+'_O.R_R-- 1-0, "
SR1 P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CG-SC FORR9
SR1 V.Y. KUMAR. ADVFOR R~1 1_'1'<:1"'13)
W.P NOS. 39137 OF 2009. 32'? 34 OR'2;0iO, S
8: 21511222 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1.
.01
" "(RY SR1 V. LAKS1--1M1NARAYA_1\1A. ADV..)
SMT. SAv1THR1 M V
W/OKSURESH.
AGED A_BOU'rf49 Y1a.;§\RS,"~ O . ..
WORKING AS 131«:.G1STRAR;' "
N1MHANs;'HOS1_1.R Rc1j_p,:)'.~..._ »
BA1\1'G1$11;O*Ri%:§.O N 7},
SR1 MvMANJUNATH NA_1'1«;,
S/O MATH?'-.A 1\'1A1K. = _
AGED 50 "1'1«;ARS.;- L
A[§Dl'FIONAL COMMISSIONER.
O./'O REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
~ .1y1YSOR;: _--"570 005.
'S.RISAA1:M~vKUNJAPPA
' 5/0 A S '1'.i1_1131'3APRA.
AGES; '53. YEARS.
ADDITEONAL COMMISSIONER (ADIVENJ
.1 BRUPHXT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
S' f'BANGAl,OR§E3 -- 560 002.
. .. PETITION ERS
AND:
1.
UNION OE INDIA,
THOUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
TRAINING,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-- 110 001.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMI'SS5I'ONV.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ' ''
DHOLPUR HOUSE, "
SHAHJAHAN ROAD.
NEW DELHI 110 001.
STATE OF KARNATAKA; _ V,
THROUGH CHIEF SECRE'TAR'i".;"
GOVERNMENT OF KARN_ATAKA,, .
3RD FLOOR,V\'.IBHAN.;A ' "
BANGALORE .5230 001. ' "
DR. R EOREGO-IIIDA--I_' ' '
S/Cf LATE ETNNEGOWDA.
AGED ABOUTSZ? YERARG, ' '
WORKING AS CHIEF~EC_XE(.,'--UTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLAPANCHAYATH, ..
SHIVAMOG _ -
sII1vANAN;aAIAII,
«_s"/O 1.I1LN_KA_PPA,
' AGED ABOUT_ 58 YEARS.
As.I':H1EF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
" ZILLA PANCi--IAYATfi,
MAD1_EE.R.I=.
. SR1 "sT.r3UTTAswAMY,
" as/_O SANNAPPA,
' »AC{:?,D ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONER.
GULBARGA DIVISION,
" GULBARGA.
... RESPOND ENTS
W P NO. 2}?-219 OF 20}O
BETWEEN:
1. SIVIT. SAVITHRI M V.
W/O K SURESH.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS REGISTRAR.
NIMHANS, HOSUR ROAD, ._
BANGALORE. I
2. SRI M MANJUNATH NAIK, _
S/O MATHRA NAIK, ' '
AGED 50 YEARS.
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER." -
O/O THE REGIONAL"COMMISSIONER.
MYSORE -- 570 005. ' -
3. SRIA M KUNJAPPA 'V
S/O A S MEDARRA,
ADDITIONAL .,COI'vIM.I4SSIONI:R IADMN.)
BRUHATI"BANGP.LORIé3.M1AHANAGARA
PALIKE. - ~ 'I
BANGALORE --"'5E§'O.'0~0fi';_.»RV A
_ . .,.PETITIONERS
(BY SR1 V. LAKSHMINARAYANA. ADv..)
'I 'D_NIOO'N"'OI:' Imrjm.
RTHOUGR. 'THE SECRETARY.
D«ERAR'I'Is/IENT OF PERSONNEL 8:
TRAINING.
. NORTH BLOCK.
'NEW DELHI -- no 001.
' 2.'; UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
TPIROUGH THE SECRETARY.
DHOLPUR HOUSE.
SHAHJAHAN ROAD.
NEW DELHI no 001.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE -- 560 001.
4. SRI K R RAIVLAKRISHNA
S/O K RAJAGOPAL.
MAJOR, DIRECTOR.
DIRECTORATE OF
SOCIAL SECURITY AND
PENSIONS, KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAE *-»
M S BUILDINGS, ' _ --_ , "
BANGALORE -- 560 00'I'.,_" '
5. SR1 G S SHIVASWAMY, ' , _ -
S/O LATE N 'jSHNANALAH, "
MAJOR, ,E;<'ECuTIvI; DIRECTOR; H »
KARNATA_KA:_R_ESIDE.NTIAL'-~' '
ED DC A.TI_C)NAL*--Ei\IS'i'I.TUT1ONS,
SOCIETY; C SUIIIDRIN.
NRU'PAT£iUNGi~fL- .
BANGALORE««_ 560._OO.1,"
6. SRI S ANEES SIRAJ}. A
S/;O SR1 SIRAJDI. IIASSAN,
_____ _.
V «.,CHIE'F.,ExECUTIvE OFFICER,
. 'R;\IC'IviU.R.
F ...RESPONDENTS
P NO.S22O--222 OF 2010
V'
_ jg', SMT. SAVITHRI M V.
W/O K SURESH.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
WORKING AS REGISTRAR.
NIMHANS. IWIOSUR ROAD.
{BY SRI V. - ~
BAN GALO RE.
SR1 M MANJUNATH NAIK.
S /O MATHRA NAIK,
AGED 50 YEARS.
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER.
O /O THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER.
IVIYSORE -- 570 005. " «
. SR1 A M KUNJAPPA.
S/O A S MEDAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS,
ADDITIONAL cOMMISSIONERIA_DMN_) '
BRUHAT BANGALORE. x A-NA(_:;ARA_
BANGALORE A 560 002;
' '§'.I';,*~F4E"IITIONERS
AND:
1.
-N
V
THOUGH SE;1CRE'1"A_RY, .
DEPARTN:EN"TOE PERSONNEL &
TRAINING.
NORTHBLOCK; _ . _
NEW DEL"HI_4 1.10 001."
U:1j\Ii1O,1$J.AP{JABLI(Vf'VS1?;"I%"N:/ICE COMMISSION.
* 'TI-FROUG.H'THE SECRETARY,
' DI-IOLI?URIw1.I'O--r,ISE.
._ 'SII,AHJAHA"N~ROIm.
NEW DELIgII> 110 001.
STATEOE KARNATAKA.
= .. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY.
" I GOVEELRNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
V 39-9 FLOOR. VIDI-{ANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE W 560 001.
SRI MENDONCA ANTONY.
S / O SYLVESTER MENDONCA
MAJOR.
\.£
_ {BY SR1 LA_i<sHMINARAYA'NA, ADV.,]
PRIVATE SECRETARY T O
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE.
VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE.
W P 1\IO.32~34 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
I. SMT. SAVITHRI M v.
W/O K SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS REGISTRAR. -
NIMHANS, HOSUR ROAD, ; "
BANGALORE. "
2. SR1MMANJUi\IATHNAIK;".: _ , ..
S/O MATI~IE'A I'
AGED 5Q.YE3A_R:5_..';'. " ' " »
0/ O: THE ;RB:GIOIIAL._ 4C'C)_1\»IMISSIONER,
IVIYSQRR A 570 'QQ5.._
3. SR1 A MKUNJAPPA. ~ .
S/O A s MEI)APPA.
AQEE) 53 YEARS.
A:)DI1f1_ONAL cO'IvI-IVIISSIONER {ADMNJ
I " «BRUHAT BANGALORE MAIIANAGARA
' .vVPAI.,IKI;_,'I .
. B'ANG'ALQREfV4"56O 002.
' * " PETITIONERS
_ 1;, UNION OF INDIA.
{IIIOUGH 'I'I-IE SECRIETARY,
H ?I)Ia:IJAR"I'MEN'1' OF PERSONNEL egz
' TRAINING.
NORTI--I BLOCK.
NEW I)E.I.-HI -- I I0 00:.
. . . REsPONI)EAIfIjs': , "
as
1.0
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.
3RD FLOOR. VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE ~ 560 00]..
3. SR1 V SRIRAMA R1«:D1§>Y.
S /O LATE VENKATESWANIY,
MAJOR, KAS (SUPERTIME SCALS). '
PRESENTLY WORKING AS '
ADD1T1O1\1AL cO1v1M1S1ON1:R, ._
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA .
1>AL1KE.
BANGALORE.
* RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA},AGA"F?'OR.R{1~.TQ 3, 7 TO 9, 13
T015 AND 17 81118., A ' '
SR1 RAV1 vAR1\/1AaK'1I1v1A,R SR;,cOU11S1;L' FOR
SR1 H. KAMATHA FOR' R m 4_
SR1 SR1 ,B.V;. 'AC';HAi3dr;_fA SR;.__cOU'NSEL_1'OR
SR1 S.V. 1\1ARASiH1MHA11\1._F'O'1R DR 2; 1 0; TO 12. .
SR1 11.81-.1O.1S,'SR. "t::O111~1_S1«;_L {FORM
SMT. v1;11A'1*1A11A1<.S111;y11_§O'1?O'R<R W 16 AND
SR1 M.S BHAG AwA_T11, ADV FOR R A19)
* aw? 3.9133 OF'".'20'G9'V
SR"113';O. 1\1A§1'DA KUMAR.
S/O.'-SR1,.';c;O.RALA1<R1S1LA1\1A.
¢ [AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
-~ 'R,/SO, NOL14. KARNIC ROAD.
¢ QSHANKARAPURAM.
" _1--3ASAvA1\1G11D1.
-~=BA1\1GALOR1:: -- 560 004.
WORKING PREJSEZTLY AS
"-«_;1O1NT SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER.
.. . PEJTITI ONER
I 1
[BY SRI KN. PI-IANINDRA COUNSEL 8:
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE FOR
M/S HEGDE <3: RAO.,]
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, --
DEPARTMENT OF' PERSONNEL AND »TRAI«NINOj;O I
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE CO--1I\YIIv4IISSIAON. I I T-
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
DHOLPUR HOUSE.
SHAHJAHAN ROAD. V ._ _
NEW DELHI -- 110 0011- ~ '
STATE OE KARNATAKA;"'T~..'; 1 .
REP. BY ITS.~CI?H_EF SECRETARY," A
GOVERNIVIENT . ,
SR0 FLOOR, V_'.I'£)}~'IANA SOIIDIIA,
DR. AMSEDIIARROIEDI V 'I I I
BANG;-\I;OR_E:,~ 56%;)' O0 3;
DR. P BOREOOWDA, »- I
S/O_ LATE";'~R'I PII\}'.NEGOWDA.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AS CHIEEEXECUTIVE OFFICER,
I " zILLA"RANCI::IAYAT.
A
"SR;I* SH IOVANAQNJAIAH,
S;=«O. S_R1¥..$NKAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
CAWLORIIENO AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
' 'IvI_A_DIKERI.
. S. PUITASVVAMY.
S/O SR1 SANNAPI-"A.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
ADDITIONAL REIGIONAI, COMMISSIONER,
L' .-BA:\I_c;AI,'O,RF 45560 027.
12
GULBARGA DIVISION.
GULBARG-A.
RESFONDENTS;
(BY SR1 MUNIGANGAPPA, AOOSE FOR R1 3; 2,
SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA FOR R ":3, ..
SR1 RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR I .
SR1 H. KANTHARAJ, ADV. FOR R M 4 TO 6.); -- R. Q»,
WP NO. I527-- 34 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
I. SI-IIVAYOGI C. KALASAD, KAs';~~.._' _
s/O c.v. KALASAD._, _
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARI--3_. :
WORKING As DIRECTYOR- {Am/I'iv-- HR}
KARNATAKA POWER TRA-N_sM:'IssION 'V
OORFORATIOI~:'LIMITF;"D';'-. 1
CORPORATE
K.G.ROA_D~. = _ .
BANGALCIREQ 560"~€)O9';Cjj '
2. N. JAYARAM, 'I~:;Aws, * I.
53/0 NARASIIVIHALAH,
AGED AI=3OUT 42;.
wORK1NG"As'D1RECTOR,
DE{PARA".|_'MEN'FI OF HORTICULTURE.
~ _ Gv-QVERNIVIENT O'F"i{ARNATAKA,
' «I,AI,I3AGII_.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SR1 Rs' RA"JAOOR2IL_ SR. COUNSEL FOR
'FM/S P.S. RAJAGOAPL 8: ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
LUNION OF INDIA
.. __.BY ITS SI££CRE'I'ARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMEN'I' OF PERSOI.\INIEI.
AND TRAI.NING._
I3
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCEIS (SI
PENSIONS, NORTH BLOCK.
NEW DELHI -- 110 001.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
DOLPUR HOUSE.
SHAHAJAI-IAN ROAD.
NEW DELHI W 110 00}
BY ITS SECRETARY.
STATE OF' KARNATAKAI
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. V
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND I A
ADMINISTRATIVE REFOREMS, ~
VIDHANA SOUDHAI
BANGALORE » 560 001.
DR. P. BORE OOWDA.
S/O LATE PINNEOOWDA, A.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, , . "
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, " " * '
SHIMOGRI.' ' ~ 5.5 .711
SHfVANA_'N.JA.If\,}I;' ,
S/O LEN'I«:AI"=PA," _ ' . _
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
;?,I,J.,_LA PANCHAYATH. V
" - wIADII_S:RE.. -------- I'
I SFLNNAPPA.
A_DDITI_O'NAIII"REGIONAL COMMISSIONER.
GULEARC-A DIVISION.
GULBAROA.
RAMAKRISHNA.
"»/O K. RAJAGOAPLA,
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL
. SECURITY AND PENSIONS.
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARITAT._
MS. BUILDINGS.
BANGALORE - 560 00'}.
I5
WRIT PETITION NO. 38702 W 38705 OF 2009 &
38751 -- 38758 OF 2009
WP 38702 TO 38704 OF 2009
BETWEEN: ..
1.
IIA'VERvI._ ' - I'
0' THROUGH TI"II*-3 SECRETARY.
SRI SATHYAMU'RTI~IY
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS ,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER " _
KOPPAL.
SR1 N PRABHAKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS': _ _
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
KOLAR _ '
SR1 ADONI SYEI3~'SALEEI~/I
AGED _
WORKING ASi__IvIANAGING!_DIREcT§OR
KARN_A*:rA._I:A~vIFODDV.AND-C1vIL*vSUPI>LIERS
CORPORATION grip, NO": .16/_ 1
MILLERS S'1"AN1D. BOEDV
VASANTHA NAGAR,' V.
BANGALORE A 550 052,
Si?I_§:&0S0RI'JARAnHR--.(}:
" _ AGEDs,_ABOIJT 53
. DIa:pLITI<'COMMISSIONER
... PETITIOi\ERS
_ {By Sri v I;AI{SIIM'INARAYANA. ADV]
UNION OF INDIA
DEPARTMFINT OF I?'ERSONN.E"I' {SI
TRAINING-
NORTI--II BLOCK.
16
NEW' D1Z3LI*II~IIO O01.
. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
. STAT E OF KARNATAKA.
THROUGH TIEIE SECRETARY
DIAIOLPUR HOUSE
SHAHJAHAN RAOD
NEVV DELHI -- I10 O01.
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OR KARNATAKA '
3RD FLOOR. vII_)I--IANA SOUDIIA
BANGALORE.
. DR P BOREGOWDA. .
S/O LATE PINNEGOW"DA._ 2
AGED ABOUT 57 YRS, =
WORKING AS CHIEF' E»XCECUT1'JE'0FF'ICE3R,
ZILLAPANCHAYAI'-'H, , '
SPIIVAMOQP:/r , ,
. SRI SIIIVAIjA;I\I.;{AIAI:;. I: '
S/O ,LENKA~P;P,A. _ _
AGEO ABOUT .y'RS ., '
WO'RK*I«NG-- AS --r.:HIEE'_ExOI«:EUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLAPAN4C}-IAY;\,T}IA, .-- V
MADIKERI: " ' '--
' ' S P.U'[.'1'ASW '
. 'S/O SANNAPPA.
_ *AG£<:L'-A't30»IJ'I'*57 YRS,
'- . AOOI;*I'IIO.NAL;- REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
'GUILBAIIGM-)IvISION,
G~I.II,B;ARGA
. A. RESPONDENTS
'' "..jj.,_V:R'I3S70S & 3875} TO 38753 OF 2009
«
I "If SR] SA'I'IEEIYAI\/IuIfa'rI~Iy
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
IDEPIIITY COMMISSIONER
17
KOPPAL.
2. SR1 N PRABHAKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR
3. SR1 ADONI SYED SALEIEZM A ,
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS ' - ._ E
WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR ..
KARNATAKA FODD AND CIVIL SUPPLIERS
CORPORATION LTD. NO. 16/} *-
MILLERS STAND BED AREA,
VASANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 052...'
4. SR1 SRIVARA H G
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
DEPUTY COMMTSSIOBER
HAVERI : = 1 '
V 75._;. EETITIONERS
(By Sri
AND: V ' V I V '
1. UN1ON OE1ND1A'--. A
"1H3.3O UGH TEE} SECRETARY.
DE'BARTM__ENT OE...pERSONN'ET &
' NORTH'~BLO'CK.
A . N'EW'vI)fE¢LEII}:1~'10 001..
' 2. U'A1£O1\:~RIjBI.1c SERVICE COMMISSION
T1L1RO'U.GH THE SECRETARY
» AA DHOLTPUR HOUSE
SBABJABAN RAOD
NEW DELHI M 110 001.
;3_.__5STA'rE OF KARNATAKA.
'I'HROUGI---I Tl*'{E CIWIIEF SECRETARY
GOVI§CRNMEN'I" OF KARNA'I"2'-XKA
SR" FLOOR. V1131--IANA SOUDHA
4.
* _ I?AiCIfiUR,_.
I8
BANGALORE M 560 001.
SR1 K R RAMAKIRISIIINA,
S/O K RAJAGOPAL, MAJOR
DIRECTOR.
DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
8.1 PENSIONS.
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT T V
SECRETARIAT. . ' I I
M S BUILDINGS.
BANGALORE M 560 001.
SR1 G S SHIVASWAMY _
S/O LATE K N SHIVANAIAII, *
MAJOR '
EXECUTIVE DIRECTO__R;._ _ .,
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL \_ 1
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS" I
SOCIETY. _
C F C BUILD"INi'},,...' ._ 1
NRUpATI1UNCA:j_RAOvD;_
BAN GALOR14j_..4> 560-.00 -- " V V.
S ANEES SIRA.I~~~.._» " ._ - .
S /O SIRA-JUL IIASS
MAJOR"; _ '
CHIEF ExEC'UTI\'IE'OIIEICER.
Z.11§;LASAPAI.\ICIHA3r'AT '
RESPONDENTS
§_fiTP'~?$§3.75?I
BET§Vfi_3_E_}_\£ A
SR1" SATIIYAI\/IUIITIJIY
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
" --1:3EPU'I*Y COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL.
SR1 N I"RABI-IIAKARAPIDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
DEE'U'IY COMMISSIONER
1.9
KO LAR
SR1 ADONI SYED SALEEIVI
AG ED ABOUT 53 YRS
WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA I'-'ODD AND CIVIL SUPPLIERS
CORPORATION LTD. NO.16/I.
IVIILLEIRS STAND BED AREA.
VASANTI-IA NAGAR,
BANGALORE ~ 560 052.
SRI SRIVARA H G
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI _ «
~ . ._ * --.., . PE'ITI:IOI\II«:RS
(By Sri V LAKSHMINARAYANA; Aiyjfiiiv
AND:
E3
. UNION an IINOIA1 is,
THR(:.)UGI~iIA';I'I*iE SE,CRET.ARY, .
IDEPARTI'-I/{CENT IPE.RSOI*I'N'BI* 8:
TRAINING" *
NORTH }§3~I_.OCKf _ _
NEW. DELHI _~1 IO O01.
v.PUBLICSSI$RVIICE COMMISSION
'*IfIIROUOI:I"THI«: SECRETARY
I *DH'QLP_UR"HO{JSE
"' _ SEIIAHJAHANV. RAOD
I\I_E;w I)_E'L}j"_f.I"-- 1.10 om.
STA O15 KARNATAKA.
.. THROUIGH TIFIE CHIEF SECRETARY
" I GOV{*3RN.MEN'F OF KARNATAKA
I3R,1,?" FLOOR. VIDHANA SOUDI-IA
BANGALORE M 560 F01.
SR1 M ENDONCA ANTONY
S/ O SYI,VES'I'I?JR EVIEZNDONCA.
MAJ OR.
,,,o-
' 'mi
20
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO
MINISTER FOR
AGRICUIJTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE.
WP 38755 -- 88758 O}? 2009 ._
BETWEEN:
1.
HAVIEZRI:
SRI SATHYAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL. V
SR1 N PRABRAKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YRS _
DEPUTY cOI\(IMISS_1O1~qER
KOLAR I = 3 '
SRI ADONI' SYED SALEEM
WORKING AS MAAIAr31R__G- DIRECTOR
KARNATA}$_ZAI i§'ODD"AND'cIvIL SUPPLIERS
CORP_ORA'I'}ON' LfI"'jD. R051 5/ 1 .
MILLERS STAND BED AREA.
* _ VYIYSAAIEHA NAGAR;~~~~ "
BANSAI.,,ORE._-- 550 052.
"
AOEI) ABO1_JT53 YRS
DERU1fY'c.c3sI\/IIIIIISSIONER
... PETITIONERS
,(§'E3yVVS-:'1T.EAVLAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV)
UNION OF II\f.DIA
THRO UC-{Ii TH E SEC RETARY.
RI«:SI>O1w'*5I)_:"ERjf1?S'V 8' E
21
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNET &
TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK.
NEW DELHI W110 001.
2. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY . fr '
DHOLPUR HOUSE
SHAHJAHAN RAOD
NEW DELHI A 110 001.
3. STATE OF'KARNATAKA, I --« _
THROUGH THE CHIEF4_SECRE'1:'.ARY__
GOVERNMENT OF' KARIIAT.A;:A;--. . -- I
BANGALORE ~¢_56Q 001. " _
4. SRIVSRIRAMA}REDE3Yi A
S /O LATE'<V'ENI{AfIASWA1ViY, A
KAS{SUPERTh'viE.»SCAiLE];*~., ' -
PRESENTLY 'WOR1NG~AS .._
ADDITIONAI.COMMISS1'ONER.
BRUHAT E~ANGAI_-.OR.E "
MAE NAGARAEALIKE,
.....
RESPONDENTS
{By SR1' SR. COUNSEL FOR
SM'I'*:.. B VAIAYALAKSHMI (3.:
S [SR1 K C SHANTHA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-165,
VSRIIRAVWARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
- S A.ICSRI'H.,KANTHA RAJA FOR C/R R4 -- 6,
" _ S.RI--PARCY P. TRIPATIL, ASG A/w
_ SR1 S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R1.2,'7,8,l3, :4 & 1.7
SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA FOR 123.9, 15 & 18
" SR1 B.V ACHARYA. SR. COUNSEL FOR
~~ SR1 S.V. NARASIMHAN FOR R-- 10,11 & 12
SR} MS BHAGAWATH. ADV. FOR R ~19)
22
wp NOS. 38709 -- 38710 OF 2009 8: 970-975 OF 2010 :__
wp NOS. 38709710 OF 2009: E
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N SIIANKARNARAYANA.
S/O S SOMAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS.
DIRECTOR, «
PRE--UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE --~ 560 003. E'
2. SR1 B. NKRISHNAIAIL _
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, " .
JOINT SECRETARY TO' 'CHI F .MINIVST}Z;R*;'
GOVT. OF I2:ARNATA2<A."~ _ * - *
VIDHANASO[jDHA;7. _
EANGLAORE .560' 00.31'; .
I » PETITIONERS
[By SIjiI\;1I E'(::5;_pIM3iNARAfYA,NI'I,_'ADV}
AND: E V V K E E
1. UNION OE INDIA V
"'1_fHR€)UGHV"'EHE SECRETARY.
V. ..D:EIjAI<TMENT' OERERSONNET 8:
v. _ TRAINING...
NO'R.im,'EI,OCK,
"5"._NEW.'D,ELIfII"--~1 1.0 001.
2. 'UNION -PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
. OTDHOLPUR HOUSE
' SIIAHJAHAN RAOD
*-I\.TEW DELHI A 110 001.
STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THROUGH THE CHIIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
.4...
13. N KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
23
BAN GALORE .
DR P BOREGOWDA,
S/O LATE PINNEOOWDA, »
AGED ABOUT 57 YRS. .. _
WORKING AS CHIEF EXCECUTIVE OFFICER, .
ZILLAPANCHAYATH, ; " = ~ LT» '
SHIVAMOGA. - ' w
SR1 SHIVANANJAIAH.
S/O LENKAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 58 YRS _
WORKING AS CHIEF IEXCECUTIVE OFFICER
zILLAPANcHAYATH~,.. "
MADIKERI. '
SR1 S PUTTASWAMY' '
S/O SANNAPPA, V
AGEDABOUf'1'5.'7YRS, _ - '
ADDITIONAL L?J3GIC)--NAiL"COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA.._DIVI'fSION " .
fl ...RESPONDENTS
WP Nos) 97'0_-97
EETWEER; V-
* I,
SFLAIIARAIARAYANA,
* S/Q SSQMAPPA,
._-Ac;EfD._54 YEARS,
'DIRECTOR,
»..pRE-.III\II'vERSITY EDUCATION.
M AILLEJSHWARAIVI.
EAYOALORE M 560 003.
JOINT SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA.
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
24
BANGLAORE -- 560 001.
PETITIONERS
{By Sri V LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV}
AND:
1 .
UNION OF INDTA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF' PERSONNETOI I '
TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK.
NEW DELHI W110 001.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COM-MISSION' _ f:
THROUGH THE SECRETARY' --
DHOLPUR HOUSE ' » '
SHAHJAHAN RAOD ._ .
NEW DELHI '7} 10 00.1.... _ '
STATE OF « ,
THRQI__?GH_'I'HEg:_CH--I_ SEC-RETARY
GCeVERN'MENT VOE KARNATAKA
3RD F1,OOR,=V1O'§: 'REASOUDHA
BANGALORE, *
SR1 K R RAMAKRISHNA,
. '-.TS"/gA_,K EAJAGOEEL, MAJOR
. r _, DIRECTOR,
'V I I3:RECTOEATE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
._ PEN_S_IONS.
I , KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
"SECRETARIAT.
M S BUILDINGS,
___BANGALORE - 560 001.
SR1 G S SHIVASWAMY
S/O LATE K N SI-IIVANAIAH,
MAJOR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL
EDGCATIONAI, INSTITUTIONS
25
SOCIETY,
C F C BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA RAOD,
BANGALORE -- 560 001.
S AN EES SIRAJ
S/O SIRAJUL HASSAN,
MAJOR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
RAICHUR.
9
WP N0s.972~973 OF 2010 :
BETWEEN:
1. SR} N sHAKARNARAi?I*II\IA."--
s/0 S SOMAPPA, '- '
AGED 54 YEARS.
DIRECTOR," '
E:)jU:i2ITIoT\I',_ .
MAI;LESI'1"A/ARAM, ' '
BANGALORE I--..j5(30 ., ' -I
SR1 B. N KRISFINAIAHV,
AGED AB'OUT.5.'E'--- YEARS,
J(;>II\IT. SEcRE:TAT<'Y' ',i.U CHIEF MINISTER,
I " « _VIEHAfI~;EA'soUDHA.
' I':sm_\:"I3LAQIRE----.-- 560 001.
PETITIONERS
{By Sri 'LIEIESPIMINARAYANA, ADV}
A _ I,,.".I__II$H0N OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERs0NI\IET 5:
TRAINING
NORTI-I BLOCK.
NEW DELI-II »I I0 00.1.
26
2. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DHOLPUR HOUSE
SHAHJAHAN RAOD
NEW DELHI -- 110 00;.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, I ' 2 A ..
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY--A I .1
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ' _
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SCIUDHA "
BANGALORE -- 560 001. -- "
4. SRIMENDON'CAAN.T.ONY "
S /O SYLVESTER M.EI\TDO'NC:.A... ' ~
MAJOR,
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO I
MINISTER FOR _ _ -
AGRICUL?I*URE:-.' _
" .
BANGALORE; "A '
RESPONDENTS
WPP$iifli2Z§9E;£flQ;':
SETWEENL - V . 4 V
I . I€.5HA1mL{NARA.YANA,
- S}'Q_ SIOMAPPA--,~------I "
,' I . RAGEAD SAYEARS.
*1NRECTORy=
_ *-TPRE-UNIvE'RSITY EDUCATION.
. yIvIALLEs3I:;IwARAM,
EAN.GALORE -- 560 003.
2. SRE B}, N KRISHNAIAII,
I I AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
JOINT SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER,
" --GOVT. OF' KARNATAKA.
27
VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGLAORE ~ 560 00}.
[By Sri V LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV]
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNET.__&
TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK, '
NEW DELHI~11O 001.»
STATE OF KARNATAIIA,' 'T '
THROUGH CHIEF SECRIBIIARIQ 'R
G0VERNMEN1f_QF__ KA?{NA'TAI<A.uf»._ .. .,
3RD FLOOR, \xIIDHANA:soUDHA. V.
BANGALO__R£:f:g__550j_OO1,.
SR1 Va SRIRAMA RL:4DL>Y'«..,_ .
S /O 1;ATE'v'ENI<:§}'IfI'AsW.9,1v:Y,' '
MAJOR' '
KAS{SUPERTIM£C SCALE)";
PRESENTLY WORINGAS
ADE)ITIONALCOMI\/IISSIONER,
" . BIaU'Hm* BANGALORE
. RIVEAHANAGARA PALIKE.
,. 1_ "I:3A"NGzx1..0»RLf.__ " 1_
PE'FITIONERS_'RC*.._
RESPONDENTS
--. '(By Sri f'AVi'I VARMA KUMAR. Sr. COUNSEL FOR
._Si?I;H. K}'~1NTI'-LARAJA FOR R4 TO 6. SR] B.V ACHARYA, Sr.
"«.C-OVUNISEL FOR SR1 S.V. NARASIMHAN ADV. FOR R~4 TO 6
_ IN WI-31387 1.0/2009, SR1 PARCY P TRIPATI, ASG.. COUNSEL
" A/SW SR1 S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ. ASG FOR R~1 81 2.
-~SRI M.S BHAGAWATI"I. ADV. FOR R3 {SI SMT. SHEFLLA
KRISHNA. AGA 14" OR R3]
28
WRIT PETITION NOS. I803-I808 OF 2010 . 39~I'3.7j~O'P_
2009, IS PILED UNDER ARTICLE 228 AND__ "
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUSII THE QRE§'EF{7----g ~
DATED 30.11.2009. IN APPLICATION NOS. OA1_282/'0f7,OA*--. I
416/07, OA .447/07 AND 88/O8, PASSED BY_~TIWII£=C'_ENTRAL--V '
ADIVIINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED AT ANNEX +~ A, "
WRIT PETITION NO. 39138/2009'--.IS FILED'
ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF<IC..C_)NS'I'ITUT1OI7Jv'Q:F.._INDIA
PRAYING TO QUSII THE ORDER DATEDa.I130.'*1I1.2'009,
PASSED BY TIIE CENTRAL ADMISNISTRATI'-IE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL NO.«2'82--,IL0~7, "*.I_IDE IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED &
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS TH E OA.;\IO,28'2,/07.
WRIT PETITION. NOS. I52'? +»I'5v3ja:I.z20'V10 FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 228' OE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA
PRAYINC:----'I-'OTCALL'*EOR*»--TII_E ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING
TO THE ORDER _éDATED-._ I3_'I'H NOVEMBER 2009 AND
QUASH "-.TII--E ORDIER DATED 1318 NOVEMBER 2009,
PASSED BY THE .CENTRA.L'ADMISNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE' I .BENCH," ._'..I3ANOALORE IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION "N_Os..2I82/07; 416/07. 447/07 AND 88/08 T
, [UNDER "ANX-A)" GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
" ' "BEN"EFI1?S
"WRIiIfPETI'IfI.ON NOS. 38702 -- 38705 OF 2003 &
387L5-lg- 2009, 38709 A 38710 OF 2009 8: 970-
975 OF 20.I0--,_IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 228 AND 227 OF'
_ CONSTITUTIO'N OF INDIA PRAYINO TO QUASH THE ORDER
'PDT. 3~0.1*;.1.2009 IN APPLICATION NOS. 282/2007,
e .418/C2007'. 447/2007, & 88/2008 PASSED BY THE
"CENTRAL ADIVIINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE
_ -_AN_X~'A"ANI") ETC.
TI--IIBISIE PIfITI"FIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
uu*.RESERVI*II) FOR ORIDERS AND COMING ON FOR
" I-'RONOUNCEIVIEN'I' OF ORDERS THIS DAY SABHAHIT J.
I.\/I.ADE THIE FOLLOWING:
29
ORDER
These w'r1'_t petitions arise out of and are filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tr'i'bV{%1Zi1"éL1%' Bangalore Bench (hereinafter Called the 'I'ribun_al_l;] _ aggrieved by the order dated 2 in l O.A.l\los.262/2007. 416/2007, 447/20073; jjes-,/éos---wiie-rem. I the Tribunal has allowed the applicationls by Ruie 5(3) of the Indian Adniinistraiixte Seivieesyt 'iipolintrnent by prornotion] Regulation:;._ {'b.erein.at'i,er ealled the 'Promotion Regulation') insofar_as'_t.he committee from eonisid'eri_r1'g lthe¥§:.;eas'e--.lof ltihe"me1il1bers of the State Civil Seiviee hatre age of 54 years on the first day of Ja11Lla.,r_'_yl of tllt;.¢lly¢a::_'i,:i the select list to be prepared, as a17':Si:i,1i21i'*3,I 'c3.I1Cll"L'}1_i§:t$'l'l'€?(il Rule 5(3) of the said Promotion AX_Regu.latiQi1'a11dl'directed the applicant in O.A.No.262/2007 to be_ineit.1c'l'edl_"_iaji 'the consideration zone for promotion to IAS _ against the v'aez11'ieies available on i~i«2007.
" W.P.Nos. 180306/2010 is filed by the Union of India '"1-;:':;p'{)1ude1n1. in O.A.Nos.262/2007, 416/2007. 447/2007 ~4._laV1'"1"c,i 88/2008 seeltiiig For (}1.i21Sl'1ll']g of the order passed by the ' 'i'ibt.1nal iii the said ::1pplieati<)Ii. \\<;Jé;¥¢.
30
3. W.I3.N€)s.39I37/2009, 32~3éi~/2010 & 215-22/2_0.lO are fiied by respondent No.18, 17, 4 to O.A.No.262/2007 and persons who are not _ Tribunal seeking for qL1ashIng of the order the u Tribunal dated 30% 122010.
4. w.P.Nos.387o9-710/2019 & 9'7Q§'975/2o--i.0.';;:ré rii'5:{i'~ V by respondent No.13 to .16 in end the persons who are not pa11*ti;es.. qnashing of the order passed by the
5.w;Pv.N§s5.:5:2:*=»34-,Z§2o'1o:u»er1'ied by the persons who are not fia.1'tjies :ti"1E:F'T."I:'xi"f)'.éI1.El1 seeking for quashing of the order pzrsseci .by9z.h§:-* .irt:b}:;na1 dated 30-11-2009. "wtP.Noé.'3.8:702;'705/2009 & 38751758/2009 are .A'r_fi}Ae'd._,1):y _1V'»'e.\:A"»}_:)0.'1f1'c!e_111 Nos.5,6.7 and I0 in O.A.N0.262/2007 were not parties before the Tribunal by _seeking f€JVi-'qL{'as}1i:1g of the order passed by the Tribunal " " " cj'a:ed_3o--':---- i -20 1 0.
£
7. W.P.No.38l38/2009 is filed by respondent. No.8 in O.A.262/2007 seeking for qL1.E1Sl'}iI1g of the order of the Tribunal dat l
8. Having regard to the prayer sought petitions and as all these petitions involve .. of fact and law. they are disposed of by l y
9. The material facts of the-case leading up of these Writ petitions are as iollowsvrith refer_eneVe "to the facts as averred by the applicants in O.tA.lv\tlo,u262/#22007" before the Tribunal:
81
ed 30~l P2009.
O.A l\lo.262 vtrtasp. .t"ile:1_'before the Tribunal by the appl.icants~ Ito 3 seieljtifngp reliefs: [i)_ Kt' aritappropriate writ, direction . or rorder c}ecl'aring Regulation 5(3) of " Vlndian V < A'd__nii41'1istrative Services tAppointn1en_t° promotion) Regulations, 1955. 'enacted in pursuance of sub~Rule (1) o'i""-Rytilep. 8 of Indian Administrative Services [Recruitment] Rules, 1954, so far , it. excludes the members of State Civil __V"~._S'c.rvi_ce.s who have attained the age of 54 "y_e_ars"from the zone of consideration for . their proniotion in IAS, as t;1nconstit.ut:ional and violative of Article 16 and 51-A of the Constitution of V ' India;
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, in the nature of certiorari or any other writ. direction or order quashing the list dated, nil vide Amiextzre A4, 'prepared and Ci1'(.'.t.1ldt(id by State of Karriataka of eligible ca1'1ciiciai.es by excluding petitioner to be '>2 ( '$5:
32
COl'1Sid(31'€d for their promotion from Ka1'1'1at,aka Ad11]i11iS{1"E1UV{:' Senrice to Indian Administrative Service as the Same _ is violative of Article 1.4». 1.6 of the Cons1'.ii'ui.io1c1 ofilidiai _' {iii} Issue an appropriate w1'it_...i_I1, " 'V the nature of mandamus or any ctfhef M app1'op1'iat:c writ, direction or 'o.1jde1:'*=. L"
commanding respondenismto ir1ch;'1Cie~-- .:the"= name of petitioner in the list. of' e1ig_i'o'le V candidates to be considered fo1f;o1'0motioz1~t¥ from Karnataka AdI1]iniSti":?;{iV€ service "5". V __ vacancies avaiIab1e.»i'n-the year '2006eU'7';_'
(iv) Quash the _letter-- i_ d'ated§.
10.03.2007 ,made "jN0:-f)PAR61'GiSAS 2006 (Part) isésuued by,th"ea__31ff'*'"respondent VideAnnexu1'eA--.6'. '' 2 {V} P300"s§ic_h'««.:'othei' i'u1'1.he1' o1'de'1'/ efias this €Ho'n"oTe_VC-ourti-may deem fitaiid p;:ojpe1' the i:.ite.rest of Justice. it that the applicants have sought fol' Rule 5(3) of the Promotion "'~RegufiéiofiiVie11ac:t,eci"i11~----p--u1'suance of the su'o~1~u1e{1) of Rule 8 'Vol' ];1;i{ii&1i1"v.AdI'i;l'i.l%i.iS1L1'atiV€ Services [Recruitment] Rules, 1954» ii1SC.{3i'HS it the members of the State Civil Services [who hieufe'A;1i..té1.ined the age of 54» years from the zone of .C'OIiSiC1f§1'E1ii01'1 for their promotion in IAD, as uiiconstitutional ifio1aii,ive ofA1'1,i(':1es 14. 1.6 & 51A of the Constitution of "--.iIi'ic'i'ia. Ii. fu1"t:}'1e1' 2--:ve1'reci in the 2l]")pfi(.'.?,l1',iO1"l that first Happlicauii. E7):'.i53 I'3o1fegowda was born on i6--'7'--}.952 and he 33 has attained the age of 54 years on 16-7-2006. He was selected for Kai'nai.aka Administrative Service {KAS) Junior Scale on 25-8-1983 and was given Senior Scale 1989 and subsequently. he has been given selection' _ with effect from i0-7-2001 and Super Time Scale.-wlt1fi°e:ffect 9' from 26-2-2004. The second applicant 94Sl1iva11ar'i§aioal1:.it0.9 was born on 2-4-1951 and he.-has atEa_.in'ed the'9V'S-age of years on 2-4-2005. He wast"-,sele_cte(:l' '-for 'V':Kai%i*iataka Administrative Service (10318-}._Ju_nSior:Sca.levzon 10- 1-1983. He was given Senior Scale on 3-10_- Snbsieqtiently, he was given selection g;1'ad-e:9fwitl"i=__ frorn"'--1"4-_1__iVf-2000 and Super Time Scale ivitli7ei7leci€-.lrorn*1_'4- 1 i -2603. The third applicant
- Sri S Ptittasxvainy on 5-3-1952 and he has attained the yearscn 5-3-200. He was selected for 'S 9' Karna.taka:Adniinist.rat'ive Sen/ice [KAS} Junior Scale on 19- given Senior Scale on 3-10-1989.
Sul)'se9eS;uei'it.l3'/,'I. was given selection grade with effect from _ v1_'0-7-2001*and Super Time Scale with effect from 26-2-2004. 9 x 1.0. it is avei-red that fixation of cut off age as 54 years iilunder Regi,i.l21i.io1:i 5(3) for consicleration of members of State fCivil Services for pi'onioi..ion in IAS is illegal, Capricious. ( :
34
whimsical and he has been "picked out from a hat" having no nexus with the object" sought to be achieved by years as cut off age. It is further at/erred that _ proviso to sub~rule 1 of Rule 16 of if cum~Retirement Benefit.) Rules.
rnernber of All India Seivices shal14._1'_et.i1'el a.ttainii1gthe algell of 58 years and the age of 1*eti1'er:rie,nt.}vasll liiioilfeaseld to 60 years by notification ~an_d"si_nce date of retirement. has been inc.re.ase_d.o 58°lto'f*:l6Q~l"yea1's, cut of age of 54 yeaifsliv 5(3) ought to have been further averred that fixation date is arbitrary. Article 14 not treatment; but also arbitrary actioniri fixilngithe.eut"oif"date and Rule 5(3) puts embargo "1*estrietin.--g:thte. candidates who are seeking to improve their 'position_'vis--a¥vi_s'ttheir carrier in Government service and theiefore the" Regulation 5(3) is invalid and arbitrary- It 'is also 'vioia't.ive of Article 5i~A of the Constitution of India.
l'<'ib.e1'e""i«s no reason or basis as to why the said embargo of 54 years of age was imposed. The said Regulation 5(3) suffers from vice of ai'bitr'ariness and the same is violative of Article 14 8:. 16 of the C€)1'lSlil.U.{.i.()i1 of lndiai It is averred that 35 selectiori pmceedirigs were held by the seieetiori Commitiee on Zel 1-2006 whereby selection committee recomiiiended for the seleetiion and appoin':'.me11i by promotion off_"1»fl respoiidents in Indian Adniiriistraiive Service (IAS):v*i'i'orn. post of Karnataka Adziiinisiiative Service and members Comprised of member f1'OIfi1 Union "PubliQ_Vi'3er_viCe Comrnission (UPSCL two Joint Secretaiiies* .of Go\'J.er1'fi1nent=-' of if India, Chief Sec.rei.ary_ Go\*ernnie'n_f"»0I" Karnataka. Revenue Secretary and senior inorgi'DivisioiiaiQCorimiissiohei'.'"State of Karnataka. In the said mee'Lir1g byllV"iheVbCiomn1ittee, the following year--wise«.vacaricies \z§zere.sCt51?isiVd.ered to be filled up:
of Vacancies 2003' 2 '2_OO/7} 2 2005 w 6 2006" 1 Total 11 l'.__w1l._.it.f3--__i:s:: averred that KAS Officers are regularly *.pron1ot'ed':.i;o IAS cadre. based on the vacancies available that year. The procedure for promotion is clearly laid down in the Regulation 5(5) ofProrz1ot.io11 R€g'Lll.';1l,iOY1. it is further averred tbai the S('l€Cl.iI]g commi1:i;ee is iequired to consider ihe n1e1'ii.o1'io1.1s tranclidate and not the se.nio1'it.y and 36 the seniority will Come into play when the merit, is equal. It is further averred that. third applicant. eame to know that he was given average grading for the year 200lw2002 select. committee and the applicant has no reasorrto : ' as to why has been given average _s;rad_ing and " therefore. average grading given by the seleeting':.co1inri2ittee._for_:theV 7-fl 2oo1»2o02 is illegal, arbit.i'ary"-Sand "v.aece11t%.;1laieii--....withA rnalafide. as the selecting eo1nmi_ttee.:vv'a_nted."to those persons who were infei'io1e--«..1:.{:;' pa1;;bp.l.ie'a_fl.i:l.i'it.__is also averted that even if it is aSSL1H1€Cl_.wtl'1.al::'?[l'ie ACR for he year informed by the the said ACR cannot be taken into consideration committee. It is also averredihat t',hc..yapplica.i1tswhave already crossed the age of l V. 54 years ai1d"they be Considered as falling within the in view of Regulation 5(3). The State Gové,ifnIne;}t' liigis already prepared the list of members of lelpigible eanLdidat.es of State Civil Services for consideration ._ .promotion to {AS in their order of seniority on i--'l~2007 fill up VE1CE1I1Cl.(3S available in the year 2006 and the lapplieaiits naine do not figure in the said list. 'I'herefore the said list. illegal as the iizmies of applicrants should have x,c--§> 37 also been incorporai.ed in ihe list. in View of proviso to Regulation 5(3). The third applicant. has made a i'epresenta1t:ion daied l5~2~2007 arid the same has" lbeen replied by the third respondeni. stating __j£Ii'a€j_~ represeni3.ii.on of the third applicant has bee.n.exarir:.i_heel' and there is no provision under the law to oonsijcler his 'r1éu1f1'E:_p for_ A' romoiionai vacancies axrailablesras on 'i¢7?a.'ZOO7p.to.IAS'sirice* P V 4_ h V V i he has crossed the upper age lirzlilliii 54 yeé1~rsl"o--ri 5:;3~.'i()O7. Thereafter third a.pplieanl'*~i'i1ed_«'Vlllf§.iC.} blll\lio,200/ before the Horrble Supreme Court vnfii1Ve_l_ieonsi.itutior1al validity of Reguls,iiViLon $_(3]§ Regulation. HOVV€V€1i":. third'7fa.1)'plloe1i1i}viithclrerr the said petition with liberty i:ol7file«.ihe -ap1:'§li§I:_<*5iiii.oi':Cbefore the Tribunal. It is also averred that iiherefore tA1r:_ere"eannot be arbitrariness in fixing .. _ out-o:'1§j:.age~after'Article .151 has spread its wings in the field of ad1nin.isi,rai.ive'N,law following the decision in Maneka {._lS,78{l} SCC 248. Indeed, even before the delcision oi'--l'ij'j£\/lléiiieka Gandhi's Case. law was that no _ adminisi,:.7é.i.ivell aui,horii:y has absoluteiy discretion to decide Elie rr12ii.iei* within its eompei.enee the way it ChOOS€S. "«'_l'h.e1'efore. the z--1ppli<'*.a1'1fs have filed {her above meniionecl aippliez:-iiioi'1s for ihe afo1'esaiicl reI.ieI's. The other app1i(:ai'.ions 38 were also filed on similai' averinents seeking for the reliefs as sought for in O.A.No.262/2007.
12. The said applications were opposed by No.1 by contending that: Regulation"M§"t;f'_t'he _;Pro'r1i_iotio.n~ Regulation has enumerated the p1'oeess_ for appointme«nt State Civil Service Officers to t:.he--.procle--dure to be followed by the Com1nit*'tee in of selected candidates among the otliieers the zone of consicleration. l7u_rt.h;er is no change in the policy of and regulations pertaininggto. Ali~,I£1cii':;,_senficycié, in -'-the Eight of the amendment to Rule 18 of the 'cum Retirement: Benefit] Rules, 1958 p1'ovidi1f14gllt'o1'Vinerelasefinéthe age of retirement from 58 years__{;o"Gt} years..e__Vw'l'he'uppe1' age ceiling in the eligibility fortyeorizsideration of SCS officers for entering in the is not entirely dependent upon the retiretnent..a§e"Jc)l' All India Senriees under the Central ¥»'7IOV€1"r1f1}_(3i'1'l.. The ret.irement age in the State Service is also relevant Eaet.()r for the purpose. In the Government of *'Ke':;ala and Nagalaxtd. the retireinent. age for the State " Gover1'm'1e1i1t servzuits is 55 and 57 respectively and most of tvegjii, 39 the State GOV€1'1'1l"l'1('3I."ll.S are cont'iriui11g with the retirement age of Central G-overiimeiit. as the Cadre Controlling _ All India Services is interested in obtainirig th_e"'ser:\}i.ces.Vt.he promoted officers for a reasonably l'ong;-'period after"t_heiri.;:o.l induction in the All India Service; Any'p_rloposael"foVrraising "
the upper age ceiling in the eligibillitytcriteriaxvii} ficulttle this benefit. and will be of cadre management of the th1'eeAA..z3s,lVl"_lndi_$1lf such, the present. age fort:cr)I1vsi.deration of State Service Officers v'theV':,Al'lfIndia Services does not need" under the present dispensation satisfactorily. it is further averreti selection committee met on 2-11- V"£006.,fo1~i.jpre'paration'"'ofVselect lists of SCS Officers for the ll"y_ea'ijs for promotion to IAS cadre of Karnataka and hadllrilotilczonsidered the name of the first applicant 'namely; vI°)1r.P Boregowda as his name was not included in zone of consideration provided by the State Government. other zone of consideration of 2005 were assessed as 'good and 'very good' 1'espectiveiy and on the basis of this assessment and l<eepi1'1g in View their seniority in the State 58 years with regard t.o State GoVernn1ent.s._'...fi'he~._ 40 Civil Service, their names were not included in the select, list of 2005. 'l'he.ref"ore. they contend that. no ground is niade to quash Regulation 5(3) of Promotion Regulation.lyvhichf-.is _ impugned in the applications.
13. The 'i.'1'ibunal clubbed all tslieaplplicatiorisiland. common order dated 30- .1 l~200§h:e'ld.y that oi7.;the"a¥:ge of 54 years as the upper age. lin1it."foi~.."promotion 'of-St:.a:te Civil Officers to IAS is arbitrary the Promotion Regulation in of clause 5(3).
the of State Civil Service to the said classification has to ipart of the 'twin tests of intelligible l(v'5ii<fl'.t'§i'.fV:I1t'1«_a'V3l'1Cl."l:h€ differentia having a rational ynexusiito the object sought to be achieved. "i'here'l'ore, there is :Ii0_I1CXvt1S'befweeil the classification and the object sought Tribunal observed that prior to 1967
--V thereéwasino limit. in the eligibility condition for inclusion the VVs'ele(:t list. It was only because the Central Govei*nine1'1't did not approve the action of a State "'G'over11111eiit. wliich. gave extension of service beyond retirement age: to an oilicei' who was on the verge of i K33.-3;
41 retirement and who was selected to IAS that the Central Government in consultation with the Law Ministry decided in March, 1967 to introduce a new provision in the Regulations laying down that the selection committee shouldyb-n:ot_ 'ordinarily' consider the cases of officers who wereWoVe'i"---.5_2 years of age. At that time, the Central Governnient:'was:al.so if aware of the fact that the use of thelwordlordiunarily"'wouldgs:u f lead to inclusion in the select list. of offi-:_er's closelto the of superannuation. But the classification-.introduced in 1967 by putting__:the;1'étate::'{2ivil" in two groups namely. years and those who have an 'avowed objective' could notfleiad to for the reasons that as the word 'ordinarilyfywas tisedl, officers above 52 years with 'l lloutstanding merit andsuitability could be selected and also ..',t 'h_ecfa1_1s'e tnel.upr'essures from the State Governments and individuals.'lloificers close to the retirement age could get . "s.elected'~an'd the decision maker was very well aware that by ._ 'g:ix'ing"'~so many exceptions for the age restriction, the very ..__'""'pui;pose of prescribing such a restriction will be defeated. u°Tl'hereaft,er the age limit was enhanced from 52 years to 54 years. Therefore. the Tribunal passed the following order: 31?
i«-'fn_;-ihe 'lV"'{_§RSOl1V€-l_1'Ell applicant's name * ve':'ilic:atio:.i'o{"'i;he"«rrlinutes of the selection there only one Vacancy for the year 2006 and"'only 3 officers were included in _v ..the"eligibility list. Thus, firstly, Annexure~ ..to"'"1;he O.A. is not the actual list of « 'ovfl'i.c:efI's prepared by respondent No.3 who V Secondly. the applicant is far too junior to ' even t.he junior most" officer {at sl.no.3} 42 " The applicant in. O.A. 262/2007' have challenged th.e eligibility list of KAS officers for consideration for promotion to the EAS as on lwl~200'7 [Annexure~A4 in . O.A.No.262/2007] and have prayed that_;~,_l the same may be quashed and set. asiVd.e__.yVl . We grant the prayer. In O.A.262/2.007"*ff'- there is also a prayer to quash a11cl4.._setf~, aside the letter dated l6----3"«20:0.7 {A11I1€X11Y€~A6 to the Whicliz. is. the reply given to the applicant No-;3_. by2th.e_ 3"' "
respondent, in the ().A. r\I1f1¢XUF€~23i6 in ; V' K O.A 262/2007 is quashed "and set;a'sié.e_ _ and the respondents'--ar'e..ydirecte_dto grai'1t"' S the prayer of the applicantto inclulde his name in tlie consideration zone~.,.foi"
p'romotion to xagainst'"the'~~..vaCancies available as on 1%i=~200?gj--.V_ ' appllcélit 11i"o.A44?rw/2007 has also 'p..1,'aye€iV i'oi<._q_t_,la.shi--i1g--«the list of eligible otficeilfs;»'lor sele_cti,on_ as on 1mlw2006 was vi";_ot._&ii31clugled in the list of six officers given -»AI1it1e::;jie--Pi2 of the O.A. On uc-oiiirnittee i'ci.r"t.li'e assessment year of 2006 prod.t:ce.d.*by'respondent No.3. We find that _m~¢_ eligible to be considered for selection to' EAS for the vacancies of 2006.
who was included in the eligibility list viz, K Sa.t,yaInurthy and thus the applicant, had no chance of being included in the eligibility list for the year 2006. Further, if the appli.cant. was a1ggi*ieved about the <:ligibilit,y list as on 1-1-2006, he -should 1'":
'E-
43 have approached this Tribunal within the limitation period and not as late as on 28:-"'--._ 1l~2007 (and that too without any"-._ to x application for condonation of delafl ]. l the above reasons, the prayer to q_§uash'_' :_. Annexnre--A2 in O.A.447/2007 does' not "
survive and we order so. » ..
Regarding the additioanail llpralyer.
O.A.88/2008, we have 'already st;ated_,V in"
paragraph 28.1 of-.__.this "order thatpa the 2 prayer for a directien to eonsider"~,tlh'e~ "
applicant against thexa'd_d_itional '§.fa(ianC:ies that became avai.'.a13le'*.'fro1jn 30--"12,-2.008 does not surifiiie as the a_p.pl'icant has not challenged Regulation .~ 5(1e}:l_ of Promotion Regulat.ions,AVV_1_9E';5. hold aeeo.:*dingly."
14. above said order passed by the writ petitions have been filed as referred' 15; We have heard the learned Additional Soiieitor .lGe.neral,al..lea1'ned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioners H I~_1n'd__«learned'.:;'Sr.counsel and counsel appearing for the reshpondentsl and the reply arguments.
16. Having regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for our determination in these writ petitions are as under:
XL /'E _ \'~_; 13/ \;é ;% 44
(l)W'hether the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 30-11-2009 holding that fixation of age of 54 years as upp'er"»age limit for promotion of the membeV1's--.lof.'_$tate Civil Services to IAS cadre as provldedfunnder-«ll _ it Regulation 5(3) of the V1§fom¢:1o:n1l:§eg;11ation".
as illegal and arbitrary, justifiedpor interference?
(2) What order?
General appearing for the petitioners 'in"£iy*..1§.'i\:§s.:803436/2010 - Union of India subrniett.ed the.'--order"'passed by the Tribunal impugned "itheset. Writ petitions is liable to be set aside as the rlea_sonli'ngl the Tribunal has proceeded to hold tha_tthe_proyisions of Rule 5(3) of the Promotion Regulation regarding consideration of SCS who have completed the age years is invalid and illegal and quashing the same is uzasustainable. He further submitted that the Regulation has been framed after consulting Various State Goverriments and cut off age of 54 years has been fixed and 45 the Government has taken into account after consulting the State Government, the entire facts including the age of retirement prescribed in the States for the Goveninient servants and also of the fact that after entering.__li'nto' 3 cadre of IAS, they must have a sufficiently long"l.s:enjric:el' therefore, age of 54 years has been introduce;:1 in was earlier to 52. the policy of the Government» to 54 years as the cut-off date'u:nder Regiila--tion ofslthe if Promotion Regulation is justified ~a_ndl"'w_hen lithe-A applicants challenged the constitutional' said rule, it was for them to discharge proving that the said fixationvvlofllalgeloaf as off date is arbitrary and contraryxrto the Article 14 & 16 and 51A of the Constitution'of_VVIndia as a"x}erred in the application as it is V. pAresumedlltha't"eVery rule which forms part of the Act 'Tl'1e learned Addl. Solicitor General further submitted policy decision has been taken after weighing lqpros and 'cons and in View of the necessity of increasing or A the age of 54 years and the classification made ' among the State Civil Servants who have completed the age if 54 years and who were not completed the age of 54 years for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of EAS forms a 2% 46 separate Classification and there is nexus in making the said Classification as the object of the Central Government is to select the best of the candidates available from each State, having regard to the availability of vacancy posVi.f:ionl.l:'e%.§¢ffy« 2 year and the Central Government also into: if account the fact that the persons 1.vho"are_ 1l)romotebri_ cadre should have sufficiently long sberviee for reotderingfv services to the Department policy. d.¢¢isioii'lVllol'lllthe Government has not been sh-o'vvn_'*--tlo"-»e_be arbitrary. The Addl.So1icitor General further's._S.;;1bmittedulthat no ground whatever is made' out to show_lt'h;a--tV_ theije is classification within cut off date as 54 years or that there his the object sought to be achieved asfhelyd by.jthev.Tlribunal. The order of the Tribunal " «..i_s and liable"'to' be set aside.
V his contention, he has relied upon the decision ol'..5E3upreme Court in THE STATE OF JAMMU 8t '.,_KAs1~:MrI'i<«:_ Vs TRELOKI NAT}-I KHOSA {AIR 1974 so 1} if lfwljiereiyn in paras 55 8: 56 of the said judgment. I-lon'ble ' Supreme Court has observed as follows:
ik_a;,¥ e lVt'd"anot1:a;ei- cleeision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMRAO l_& '..o'ra'ERs ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK l "EiVli'l.OYEES \7'\fI'CE.F'.ARlE- ASSOCIATION 81 OTi""IERS [(12004] 2 47 "55. We are t,hereI'oi'e of the opinion that though person appointed directtly and by promotion were integrated into a eommon class of Assistant Engineers, thy Could for purposes of pro.moti.oi1 to the Cadre of Executivew._"' Engineers, be classified on the basis mo_1"'.Vl" * educational qualifications. The provtciing that. graduates hall be elig1_ble'=._ for such promotion t.o the t3XClL_tSi'G~T]:V"5)f'l"~. diplorna-holders does not Knot:-.1te'.. artieles_ 14 and 16 of the Constitution: .ar1éi m_us1; be upheld. l " =
56. But we hope this __;u'd.gen1e'nt'V"' will not be CoI1strueda_as_a charter" for ziiaking minute 'and 'l"yrnie,jr<)"(:osmic elassvifieaii_ons_t. Ex'e:e1l.en~C'e..is,' C;-5r ought to be the 'goal of alt" good goveriiment and e2toei'ie_n1ee 7:--_and._ -.e_qu_alit:y'« are' not [riendly be<;i--l"-é:llows." ' _A"iA.prag11'iatie approach has r--t}1eli'e_forei:;, to 3,d'op.t.e'd in order to haiifgonize} ihefirequirements of pubiic A S€'l'V'E1l"i[$r.V"~,_ But"'--iet"--1is'not evolve, through * impe1*Cept.i.ble V"~.e_>l'<:i;ensions, a theory of elastsivficatiom wliieh may subvert. perhaps V st1bn_1erge.; the precious guarantee of t'.eqt:al'it.3r,A The eminent spirit of an a ideal * society' isequality and so we must not be _ ;left to ask in wonderment; what. after all is V"-,_the".,operational residue of equality and «VE_'v-.'11_.1E'.l. 'opportunity '?
l'i"he"--V:l.eai"'.ned Addl.SOliCit.OI' General has relied on 48 SCC 76) Whe1'ei1'1 while considering the fixation of cut. off date for proinotion. it has been observed as follows:
"29. lt is now well settled that for the e purpose of ellectiiig promotion, the"
employer is required to fix a date for t.lt1.e7 . purpose of effectirig promotion. and, thiis. ll"
unless a cut-off date so lixed is held t"e._be:f» arbitzrary or 1.1l1I'€E1SOl'i3b,.l.e~ thc;"l"sa«n_'1e ll . cannot be set aside as offending A::tic.;le.11<;«._ V ' of the Constitution of Endi':-i. lY'1--lf.l"l€ instant ' it case, the cutwoff date so lixed liaizirig = regard to t.he direct.ion__s contglined L»y"t.t;ie4__ National lndustrial 'i'r_ib1_ir1al which l~.._ad--1{{ been given a ret1'ospect'1v_e effect. carinot bég said to be aifbitrary,i-irraltional, whimsiicai or capricious;
30." '' ieamed 'c:r)uris"e.l could not point outix to how tihe.ll_'s&_1id'"dat.e can be said to
-i-be aiibitrargr andu,thus';-violat.ive of Article 14 loi7tj._he Constilmion of India.
lt._isfn.ot"-.i_ri"«dispute that a cutwoff dates _can_ be " provided in terms of the pi-o'v.is1ons* oi". the statute or executive <o1*der.' in University Grants Commission V. i_},Sa.dhana C'i'1'aL1dl1ar_v it has been observed _ [SVCEC p.546, para 21] _ it is settled law that the ;:'1::i».-;c:'¢» of a date as .21 basic for (:iassili(tat.ioI1 cannot. always be dubbed as 'jarbitraiy even if no particular reason is fortlieoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the Circu.11'ist.ances. When it: is seen that. a line or 21 point there must be and there is no Iiiatlieinatieal or logical way of fixing it p1'e(.*isely._ the decision of the legislature or its delegate must. be z;ieeept.ed unless it can be sziid tliat it is very wide off the "«.'§;.l i 'relied oiipara 9 of the decision of the Hon"ole FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA vs lagid para of the decision of the I--{on'l')1e Supreme Court in to l.~ll\J~OSi-'i1 81 O"I'}~iERS vs ACCOUNTANT GENERAL 8:
_""'~'O'r'ig11:i:1-'as ((2003) 2 sec 632. 49 1'easonable mark. (See: Union of India V. Pa1'a1neswa1'ani Match Works, SCC at 310: SCR at p. 579 and Sushina Sha1*n'1a (Dr) V. State of Rajastahn. SCC at 66: SCR at p.
269.)"
32. if a cut~off date can be fixed.
ir1dispL1ta'oly those who fall within the purview thereof would form a separate class. Such a classification has 7 reasonabie nexus with the object \v.3<=§lich"' the decision of the Bank to promo1;e_it,s'=._ ' l employees seeks to achieve.
classifications would neithe'i'~ fall within t.he categoiy of creating class} class 01' an artificial classification so"as--.i:o 2 " "
offend Article 14 oiE'.4tl1e Constitutionuof' India. to ~ ._
33. Whenever---su'c.hl "3.._ eutsoifv . date is .l:ixed;_ a qitesti'on agfise as to why a
-------- ~pe1*son l'wo_ui'd. =suffei'~-..oinly because he comes. wit3hin,the wr_oi-ig side of the cut-off A date. 'out,-athe l'act*--1,ha.t some persons or a * ser:t.io'n._oi"..society"would face hardship, by i"i?self_(:an_iiot be ground for holding that
-- , the _eut.-.o'fl" 'date so fixed is ultra vires Article: =3 4 of." the Constitution.
PARA__$HO'i_TAMl?.V_{)AS BANSAL & OTHERS {(2008} 5 sec 100) 50 The learned Addl.Solicitor General submitted that since 1979 fixation of the age limit of 54 years is in operation and no grievance whatever was raised and the said"'e_tit=V'off date is working smoothly and there was no material * different policy decision either to raisetéhe IV or to uh' delete the said provision. 'I'l1erefore_';i '~thell*._0rde1' Tribunal is liable to be set aside." V _ V __
18. Sri P S Rajgopal, appeiaiing for the petitioners in submitted that fixation of cut off dateA..o.f:._5:4 making classification 3._arr1§f:i1_8 file1;_l3er5€3I1s'"i%1""'State Services as personswlio age of 54 years and the persons who have notlplcornpleted the age of 54 years is valid Ciaspsiiioation aiiduthe same bears nexus with the object Visoiiglit Aacvhieved i.e., to promote the best of the Officers in IAS cadre and it is a policy decision taken by "the .._"Stat'e Government and the Rules made under T}?..egulation would be part of the statute and wherever the " , lsamafis presumed to be constitutional and burden is upon applicants to prove that there is no nexus, he has submitted that there is no micro classification as reasoned be é'?
51 by the Tribunal and there is valid nexus between the eiassificat.ion uiade and the object sought to be aCh.i'exfe'd_.'~»_v The learned counsel submitted that the said (ilatssifieatiifo-hi has been operating since 1979 and r1omgroL1nd"Whatever is made out to show that the said I'ixation o_fAct:1t age of' years is arbitrary or contrary '[O€Ai7.'tiC1E:S" 16 the Constitution of India.
The iearned cou11se41.""has.'VreI_ieEi~._upon. para 3 of the decision of the Stipifeiiie STATE OF UP. ((1998) hasmbeen held that statutory p1.*9Vi_sVioos to be constitutionai, that be 'i Considered only where absolutely Iietfiessarjf; »--af'statute cannot be struck down __u11Iess" 11asV"i3eVerV1 gifien to the Attorney General in the If __g21".S€' sofa :.1_*ai«..St,e1t11t.e or the Advocate General in the case ofi'é;._Stat.e ":3t'751~ijj._L1t;e'ahd the Tribtmal did not issue any notice to t11e""';Ad\:otra1,e General or the Solicitor General and has it i"de"Ci.ded the h.1att,e1' in their absence and therefore. the order "Of the'~Trib1111ai eamiot be sustained. He has also retied upon the obse1."vat:ior1s made in i5a1*21 4 ()fE.!1e d{'(..'i.'..-3iOI'1 of the Supreriie Co1.11't in S'i'A"I'E OF mg;
(:1 53 not be best served if the official to be promoted to that post turns out to be a mere bird of passage having no interest: in _ the office to which he is promoted.
"this, " ' V considerations which must have swayedflf~~.._V' -1- "
in making.__ the-_ "
It is true that _a"'rul_e of; ' assume that this was one of with the Government impugned rule.
this character can be :nisused.; 'Ifl:1atV_ig true of most provisions. The-- poss'ibili.t:y- an officer who is not in the 'good bo'o_ks,of V his superiors, not.be_ing p"ronioted,~i'n due time and thereby his,_Vpchanees of pruornoftion' ruined is undoubtedly' thee. But: the possibility of,----rnisuse-*of.,a~rule is I10'gFfJ1_1I'L1'd for holding that rule tobe bad. If it is a sound principle of to assume, that: the persons who "are f in :e~harge__ of the Governrnent, are d.i_scharg_ing'. their onerous dutiesiahrid :respowiisibilities._ini a fair and l3.e1*zvestI;_V_rna1:ner;' Tl'liS» assumption, we linowfrorn experience, is not always rue. B'ut"i;h*o:se de'viatio'n.s__fro,r§n proper conduct Varesexceipvtionsg'which,Was is said in logic,
-. I'-oves ' ~-.
3,3 also V';reAli'ed'"'on number of decisions of the «..Hon-fible i,.Aéupren1ef"V'C'o'urt which will be referred to while contention of the learned counsel.
if._T19.V.1nvfi::response to the arguments of learned counsel Tvfor the~.péi1,itione1's, Sri B V Aeharya, learned senior counsel for respondents--4 to 6 in W.P.Nos.1803--06/2010 subrnitted that there may be a classification fixing the age of 54 years as out off date and debarring the person who has i._._ 54 completed the age of 54 years for promotion to the cadre of EAS. He submitted that apart from that, for the purpose of Article 14, to treat the equals as unequal. there valid classification and there should also be . object sought to be achieved and in_i:.l71e__4present may be classification of persons of 54: years in the services of th_e~.S_Vtate" 'Govern1n:e1it~and have not completed 54 years hovvever, thereis no nexus with the object sought toflbe if at all there is object, the same is defea.ted_b.y 1654(2) wherein no persons who 54 years can be consideredand_therei'ere;«,:iI1 theuabsence of nexus between the class~ificatio'n"andll"the~,object sought. to be achieved, fixation of the age: li'mit""'eannot sustained and length of aeanwAonlywbewthe criteria for promoting State Civil of IAS.
He_.h:a_s5: relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ",_Supren'v1e'; Court in T N ADIVHNISTRATEVE SERVICES A oéfiizesss ASSOCIATION vs UNION or INDIA {(2000) 5 sec E55
20. Sri Raivivarina Kuznar, learned S1'.Counsei appearing for the respondents submitted that fixation of age of 54 years under Regulation 5(3) and prohibit'i:n'g. Consideration of persons in State Civil Services wh~o.'_ha'VeT , A' completed the age of 54 years for promotion of it EAS cadre is wholly arbitrary and is yiolative and 16. He fu:'ther subrnitted that .it;self.is.i,i1't'ravifres as the same is beyond Regulation \x;hie'n._'eyn"ab1es framing of the Regulation and he has .rei'ie_d decisions in support of 11i._9_..C?-1I'1t€I1ti-:"_.>I1.:\t\t}fiiChA'V§t(i!Jid beireferred while considering E:o_nt1e.:iVtion:_o_flearned Sreounsel. He further su'_t_)y_1_1V'1ii.'i:eV('iV"' that 'iei'1gth' "o.fi::se1it/itée can only be the Criteria for eI'[e(:ti,a_£§yV ffizfomotton hfom one cadre to higher cadre and a;3ja'i*i.._ t'1"oI1_1'Vi--e1:gVth.___o'i7 'service, i.he1'e Ca1'1.n.ot. be any other C.1'_it_.e1'ia'iike ztge. 'e_xp'ei'iencte, for prescribing age or "'expe1'f;ei9.ce __é-1:13 'Va eoI'1'di1._i.Cm precedent. for prornotion dehorse A'~.]eng'1ih,_c>f'_Vse;v1ee.V T he learned Sncounsel submitted that even 't1_SSt1'l'11:t'11,g i;.ha.t" there is Classification made between the State Cixril Setiwfiiiis who have coznpleted 54 years and those who haw; tmt bompleted 54 years. there is no nexus with the "e-bjeet__oi' se"1eet.i1'1g the best <:am:iidat:es available in the State it Civii S{';~f\"i(',('.S for the proniotion to the post of MS Cadre. The *2 .
56 learned S1'.COuI'1S€l submitted that. the said classification would create classification within eiassiiication and_.i:her.e'-is no nexus between the classification and the object . be achieved. The learned S1*.counseJ1,oofu_rther'sltlbniittedthaigvl equality and inhibition against discrirn:irieat'ion»o. 1'aii'ness:"ee-.ari:l' equality of treatment are the i1i;gi=edie11ts..oli'Artiele 4._anc1l§ the , same has been violated. In this --fixatio11:oi" lprescription made under Regulation the State Civil Service who haVevA..con_iplet.edL 54 years is wholly arbitraijl cannot and the Tribunal has passed€;iV.'dietailved' reasons for quashing the said landthe order of the Tribunal is jusi.ifiedu.! * V S It A it it _ -121. sf; V_:VH'...Subrarnanya Jois, learned Sr.Counsel ' V"-sublrrilitteed that thevvljurisdiction of this Court under Article is fgnterpret the order impugned and this Court vvi1l__interferel3--.o'nly when there is error apparent. on the face of lV._ti.1e order. . He has relied upon decision of the Hon'bie "e"Sulplren1e Court i.n I.H.SI-IAI-I vs STATE OF GUJARAT 8:
' ANOTHER [1986 {2} SLR 12} wherein promotion of the Civil Judges to the post. of District Judges wherein the age limit has been prescribed is held to be arbitrary. He ox 58
24. We have given our careful consideration to the contentions of learned Sr.counsel and counsel appea1'ii1'g_ for the parties and scrutini7,.ed the material on record.W
25. Before considering the contentions----o..l7:lfthetlearledll counsel, it is necessary to cull; out,theI_provisi'ons f Regulation 5(3) of the Promotion Regtflation wh'lch:1'ead:s as under:
"5{3)' __'l"he .*'cQm'1n_n.tee.. shall not consider thelcas-es thel'rnemlae1's of the State Civil Service who ha.v'e--fattained the age of 54 years'on thefirst day7'of January ot';"tl;e_,y-y"eai'._ fc-r~ivh'ieh=.the___"select list is _.pr'epai§edZ: " L 4' V' V _ P;-'jovidlezl'that_a"rnember of the State : 'Civil.3-eArvice'~.Wl1.ose' name appears in the . <--Select"list_ liprepared for the earlier year] fpbefvore the = date of the meeting of the "co1;nmyit:tee'=_ and who has not been appointed to the service only because he «was incltidled {provisionally in that select , _lis_t} shall be considered for inclusion in ..th_e"--fresh list to be prepared by the ,,.,,.,,_Committee, even if he has in the l'lA"meanwhile attained the age of fifty four ' 2 'years:
Provided further that a member of the State Civil Service who has attained the age of fifty fou.r years on the first day of January of the year for which the select list is prepared shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first clay of January of the year or of any of the years aw"
'R Li 80 circumstances, relief is given to the persons who are in the State Service even if they have completed the age of 54 years.
26. The petitioners have not challenged the of Regulation 5(3) in its entirety but have only ~ prescription of the maximum age to__whi.ch perso'ns'.fern'ployedv in State Services can be considered'":forfpI'ornotio'nto gie;1.;_' 54 years and have not chalk-.nged'v_ other 'lpro§v'is.ion.s of , 7 Regulation 5(3).
27. It is clear from the Aai}a31rnsentsllV1?ia.de~__in the petitions that though thekpetitionerslihavelcontended that age ought to have Eiéflllyears to 60 years under Regulation 5(3),' ytheigsaielillcontention has not been pursued and the _Vhas.jnot~_ been rejected by the Tribunal and if 'l V' .thetslaid'-icoiitention"is"argued, the same would not enable the pélmlitioners -to._ai'gue about the arbitrariness of fixing the age as __the bgasisiffor classification. Moreover, in the case of GOVERNMENT or ANDHRA PRADESH vs C} LIMBADRI RAO V' wherein the Tribunal has negatived the said contention and the High Court has also upheld the same. The Supreme Court though decided the appeal on other ground, did not {S =KK_§,\..§i.
62 by the learned counsel in RAJEEV KUMAR 8: ANOTHER vs HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS (20lO[2) SUPREME TODAY 51'?) is not helpful to the respondents in theVpre:s'ent case to contend that the petitions filed by the petit;'i'o'r1ers M are not parties before the Tribunal are not m.ain.taVinlab:le._ar-.d"
they should be relegated to the T'1'ib'Lyi11al,:ylyl f; it
29. The next contention thlathlis reqtiired 1 to'. lbellvy considered is about the constitd"t1olnal validity' the fiiration of age of 54 years in }vh'e_rein persons in State Services who have completed:l54~.yeairsn_Q.f age cannot be considered on;t1ie.y pp:yF_'irst::_day which select list shall. not jby:l_'th.e (lonimittee. The contention of the applicants 'HefbAr;e_llltheA"Tribunal is that fixation of age would bring llaboutclassification within classification and has nno tozthe llobject sought to be achieved and the said 54 years is arbitrary and violative of Articles I6 «Sr the Constitution of India.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the a.ppe~1_1ants~Union of India and aggrieved writ petitioners that the policy decision of fixing 54 years as the cut off date for consideration of the persons in the State Services for promotion to IAS cadre is based upon .¢3 I i E w>«=> vi:
69
invalid in Vi€W of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. it is their contention that the said fixation of the age of 54 years has nothing to do with the object which is sought».to:?oe achieved by promoting the persons from State to the IAS cadre and the ob}ect is to select Indian Administrative Service and the sarne 'not. way achieved by fixing the ageéas alcriteria .ri=.gu1é;tii1g that the persons who completedlvilthje' age of 5.4T"yc'ars:';shall not be considered for promotic.n tci from the State Civil Services as per Regulation' in the applications filed' 'h:eiTore;=.the V. 'Elie.legslative"competence of Regulation 5(8) is not disputed. l"".f_l1"e1fe 'also in the contention of learned cour}se1eA.appea1'-inlgv for the applicants/respondents herein that 5(8) is ultravires as Rule 8 does not provide in the Regulation and therefore, the said Reg'-,..ilat,jio'1i-. ramed in exercise of power under sub--rule {1} of : Rule Svoiil Indian Administrative Service [Recruitment] Rules, it and is void as it is clear that Rule 8(1) of the said i Flules provides that the Central Government may, on the 70 recomniendaiion of the Sta'l,e Government Concerned and in cons-:.ultat.ion with "the Coininission and in accordance \V"l_tll1. such 1'egL1laiioi'1s as ihe Cenl,1'a.l Governineni. inay,-.4l_afL_erl.j' , A' consultation with the Siafie CxOV€1'1'll"1'1€I1'LSW "a~nd'..A_"~the T Commission fmin lime lo ijine, n1al{e,greci'L1'il. to t-he.__.Se:*:rie'e'l persons by proinotion from aniongst the (sii_'osia1"itive)"* members of a Slate Civil S€1'VlC€. Reéulatioii to preparation of list. of suit3;b.l_e Offieersljani1.._pro(:edui'ehto be followed by the Committee'.i"o~:;_$eleeiion from the State Civil lfdis Regulation cannot be Merely because Rule p_reeei"ibe that age limit can also be that Regulation 5(3) prescribir1.g'_£ i,heage limit is ulti*avii*es and void as wide power isvgiven ltoilfie'CentrallGovernment to make regulations from tirne' idol icfizialge recruitment to ihe Service persons by p1'01'H'Q_l,iVO1'1 l"1f(')lI"Il}"alnongst substantive Ineinbers of a State Ci)/il Sewiceg and has legislative Competence in making the Regulal'i«<)r1. 'l'l1e.1*ei'o1'e. the contention lhal Regulation 5(3) of E-'roinoii0n Re;j§1,1lai.i()i1 which is impugned in the ll'a.ppli<:a1ion5 is ul1.ravii'es of 142i.1le 8[l] of the Indian ks:
71
Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 cannot be accepted.
35. it is well settled that Article 14 of the Consjtituctioilllh H forbids class legislation. it does l1otm'fo'l*b_id¢ I classification for the purpose of legis__lati_on.
statutory provision is assailed contravenes Article 14, its:"validity"'cai"i* two tests are satisfied. The test .t:hev"classification on which it is intelligibie differentia why'.-chi.' things grouped together out A and the second is that the "must have a reasonable relation to th'e.._objcect' sou'giitd"i;o be achieved by the statutory Vprovisioin in questien. This principle was laid down by the this Court in A NORONHA's case cited suup~ra'l.--and' has been approved by the decision of the Su'pi'el=ne Court and reiterated in several decisions relied by learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Wherithe said test is applied to the {acts of the present case. clear i:.hat it is for the applicants to prove that the "c1assit'lcat.ion is not valid and it is not based upon an we 74 the statement of objections that having regard to the fact that object of promoting the persons in the State Services to IAS cadre is to select the best of the Civil Servants tvié¥o"a1*e most efficient and outstanding to discharge the S' Officers.
38. It is well settled that in View the ;i>ie.j Supreme Court relied upon by»'Sl_e'a.rnec1Acoun.se1'b.a'ppeering for a S' the petitioners that the fact ofdate been permitted to be made to be maiafide and the fixationsof Ssupheld by the Supreme Coéuritp cited supra wherein the Stiprernedv ---- considering the classification between A Diploma Holders and Degrieev T::To1ders'~--..for promotion to the post of Executive .Ei1gineers.pan'dVwith reference to the cut off date by making has been held that admittedly. a cut off date can"be v'--prov'i'ded in terms of the provisions of the statute or executeorder. Therefore, those who fall within the purview "the1'e'of would form a separate class. Such a classification it has a reasonable nexus with the object which the decision of 79 aver and prove as to how the same would affect their i'1i1"1da1i1e1'1t'a.i right or eonstit utionai principle _..or L11'lt'€8.SOH2:1lDlC. Apart froiai stating that fixation of age years is 211-bitrz-11-y and fixation of age would enl2l1b.l'el selection of the best available pe1'so__I1s in tlf1lelllS't21.f§e Services to the IAS cadre. they have not pifoved tii_at: 7-It Regulation violates Article 14 of __C.:OI1SA[itIl1tl(,)1'i.7'l,:
noted here itself that when the-.burden..'1s._:upon the applicants to prove that t.he._sét_id Regtiia'ti'on"yioiéites Articles 14 &. 16 of the" C'n;§Istit;1:_tio:i "of Tribu.na.1 has proceeded on G'overn:_nent did not justify with valid __if_ee1Soit's for theiilagye of 54 years. The Tribunal notings made by the Joint SeCret:ary aiiixri lalysol tithe regarding fixation of the age of 54 yez11"s"'i-:1'1Vti I'1}§?I'ély 'belcatise it was argued that there is file _pé:.rta_ii1i1.V1g l.()""1','l"lF3__'1f1'(?-v't(:'.S regarding fixation of age of 54 "yea1's._a_s r.'_vLiiv...ci._I4'{'year. the same has not been produced and therefo_1'r:. E-ivCl'Vt§1'Sf.V?l 'ini'ere11Ce has to be drawn and has jumped to t.he._lQ(')11<':En$Eion thzit the Said Regulation is 8.I'bll.I'8.1'y, tiI}re21so1'1.2ihi§;1 amd liable to be quashed. it is well settled that V' illms. A's(.';<--.1;.)e of _jmii(:ial 1'E;',Vl€\V in 1'espe£:>t of policy decisions _te:_1l{'e_I1"by' the ('}{)\-'"{,'I'11I'1lE?I1t. regzzzrtiiiig C()nditio1.1.'5 of se.;'viCes of < ,4» 5", E IX k,'*-J};
t/' 80 employees oi"t'13e State 0}' Union Government is limited as the State is 1)resmnc:c1 to be the empfoyer who knows best about the Conditions of service to be fixed upon its einptoyeesianudsj this Com-*1: or "I.'z-ibtinat cannot sit in j11dgH].eI1t--;C(.3V€1*.(Vithiié' decisions ta.1<(?n by the G0\761'nH'1CI1i:;' The Mscope"
interference by this Court has boon Supreme Court in TRILOKI NATHC_uKHOSA':-: case and in DII.,1P KUMAR H4 sec
42. in the Supreme Court has Eaict he struck down as diSCrimina:t_0}--)} 'that where a party seeks to i1n1'?>:j_e1(é}1V ths. ét rule: made by a competent authorit::y- on gfotin'd f..'i1Et;[T.th€ rules offend Article 14 the burden» oi-1 E11-231 to piiééidi and prove the infirmity is too we-H estabtios'}*1e(:i"*t'o »v;*i'c:~'ré_c1'}31aboi'ation. Fiirther, in para 20 it has C' been o,t.)sc:i'\~'t_'.C.i'a:-:;+ 'follows:
~ 20. Rf):-5p()I1dt':I1tS have eissafled the V'"'c.sI21ssifiCat.ion in the clearest terms but thcii' (:ho.l1ei'1.ge is purely d0cti*inaiI'€.. "A<'*2i.den1iC or Mrchnicat q1.ta1it'icaitio'n can be gei'n1a11e only at the time of initial 1'£?(':'L1it1me1'1t. for pulfposes of promotion, t*I.'{'ici(:i1(ry' and expoi"ien(.'c-3 aionc must i'otint," this the £'oi'it'<:?nt. of t}1.eii' :3 83 consideration all the pros and cons of fixing the age and to achieve the object of selecting best available personslhino the State Civil Services who would have sufficiently in IAS cadre and that the classification and K it be achieved cannot at all be babe-S or unconstitutional. There is no I'I1CA1"_i'["i11 the'_contenti'-ongoi', learned Sr.counsel appearingl"for'*ithe re'spoiidents thisll Court cannot interfere with thellorclerupayssed by"th"e Tribunal on a question of fact about object sought to be achievgydasl-.it uthe provisions of Article 22?' errors apparent on the face of Tribunal in not following the cownstitutionlalnf as laid down by the Supreme Cot1,r.t whercV_Vdeci'sio'i1 of the Tribunal is erroneous and ' if arb.itra.ry being not"'b'ased upon the relevant material and is ba_sedl:'orilirrelexfant material. Having regard to the scope of under Article 226 8: 227 of the Constitution of India; vvhen the order passed by the Tribunal is perused, it is A T' clear, as already held by us that the Tribunal has proceeded don the basis that there is classification which is not valid and the same has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and as no valid ground is made out by the
-.3 84 Government for fixing the age of 54 years as cut off year, it has based its decision on the notings made by thel:..:l)'esk Oiiicer and the Joint Secretary and adverse infer"ene.e drawn for non production of the file conta,inAl.:r~;glgif'oL;.;idg. upon which the age of 54 years fliwasyfirreldyl failed to note that there is always pre*sulmption.--"and the"'.saidl"g age is fixed by taking into account: all therelevar-it it is also averred in the appl:icatiorislllthat.thesarne violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the- material on record wouldpcleavrly show theifpresent case, the applicants said fixation of age of 54 years prornotinglerrxployees in the State Civil Services't0"lAS'cadre_»lis--~._:lvi«olative of Article 14 (SI 16 of the Constitution" Ind--iaA'and..wherefore, the said classification 'l V' '*.is j'1..i£stiified"i--and the"'"classification has nexus with the object achieved and therefore, it cannot. be said to be arbitrary,'l'ei3n1'easonable, unfair and unconstitutional as it does not violate any of the constitutional rights of the appli_cants or Constitutional principles. it is already held that Regulation 5(3) of the Promotion Regulation is not ultravires and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary and contrary to the coiistitutional : J9 xgw' 5§ 85 HoI1'ble S111')1"m"11e Court. as :'efe:'red to above. Regarding burclen of proof. the T1'll3L111I:1l has relied upon the i1'rele\§2i11L material am! has ;.)1'oceeded without any Draper 'fO!<1..T1L'l21Vtlio.t:s.
and proper 1'ea1so11Er1g that the in'1pug:<1ed Reglu_la1,io11. ' arbii rary.
45. I----Iaviaag regard to ihe_o_ver allfl'1al:erial.7.¢;.rlTécoifd and the re;-1so1'1ing as 1'el'e'rred toklbove, W'e__li'o1d that the applicants lmx»-'c failed top:_ove_7llllleitlixlliitlgnedlléeglllation 5(3) of thv: P1'on.iotior1. V' 'g1lloo11s1itu1ional. Accordingly. lay is liable to be set asidrg..- f'1~1:;;:f:'11_eb--».jt filed by the app1ice1n1ls_A/ the Triburlal are liable to be dis11'1is.sL3_cl;l l'\Cl:l(1().1'l4C}i'I1g*V1:§':»s.\?lkf6 pass the following:
. . . . .
V V fill ;3g%t.i1,ion.s are allowed. The order passed by thelllfl*flb1_:llz.il's:'I__élmczd 30-11-2009 in O.A.Nos.262/2007, V"---.___4,16/20o7V" 447/2007' and 88/2008 are set aside and the lif1';pLig:l1¢*cl I--'\'r_{s.__§1.1Ia11.i()n 5(3) of the Promotiozn Regulation is 1.0 be (r<..>ns'LElutional. The said z1ppliCatio1'1s filed before '1'1'ib11n:'1l in O.S.Nos.262/2007. 416/2007, 4477/2007
-3 i,'*/'?7"'~'v' 86 and 88/2008 are dismissed. However. there shall be no order 3.5; to c'.osai'.:~3 in mast: writ petitions.
3UDGEQi %.* Q; S;/;% i *Sp