Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr A Lokesha vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 5 September, 2024
1
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00391/2022,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00406/2022,
AND
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00235/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON 06.08.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 05.09.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00391/2022
Dr. Y. Manjunath,
S/o Y. Devendrappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Additional Commissioner of Excise,
(Crime & Enforcement)
Head Quarters, Belagavi &
Residing at No. 449, Scheme-13
T.V. Centre, Hanumannagar,
Belagavi .... Applicant
(By Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Counsel along with Shri A.
Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate - through video conference)
Vs.
2
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Sardar Patel Bhavan, Parliament Street,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 011
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110 069
3. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel Administrative
& Reforms (DPAR), Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
5. Shri C.N. Sreedhara
Additional Director
Department of Survey Settlement & Land Records
Revenue Department,
K.R. Circle, Ambedkar Veedi,
Bengaluru 560 001
6. Smt. T.K. Swaroopa,
Additional Mission Director,
Sanjeevini-KSRLPS,
Skill Development, Entrepreneurship
and Livelihood Department,
50A, JC Rd, Kumbaragundi,
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru 560 002
7. Shri M.S. Divakara,
Additional Director,
Agriculture (Human Resource Development)
3
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
Agriculture Department,
Commiserate of Agriculture,
Seshadri Road, Bengaluru 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos 1
and 2, Shri M. Rajakumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
Shri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to
7 - through video conference)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00406/2022
1. Dr. A. Lokesha,
S/o Areningappa,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Finance Member,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore 560 020
R/a No. 77, 3rd Main, 7th Cross,
BSK 3rd Stage, C.T. Bed Layout,
Bangalore 560 085
2. Capt. T. Venugopala Reddy,
S/o late K. Thimmappa,
Aged about 57 years,
Additional Director,
Karnataka State Audit & Accounts Deptt.,
R/a Prestige Falcon City,
Konanakunte Cross,
Bangalore 560 062 .... Applicants
(By Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
4
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 011
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110 069
3. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore 560 001
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel Administrative
& Reforms (DPAR)
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
5. Shri C.N. Sreedhara
Additional Director
Department of Survey
Settlement & Land Records
Revenue Department,
K.R. Circle,
Ambedkar Veedi,
Bengaluru 560 001
6. Smt. T.K. Swaroopa,
Additional Mission Director,
Sanjeevini-KSRLPS,
Skill Development, Entrepreneurship
and Livelihood Department,
50A, JC Rd,
Kumbaragundi, Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru 560 002
5
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
7. Shri M.S. Divakara,
Additional Director,
Agriculture (Human Resource Development)
Agriculture Department,
Commissionerate of Agriculture,
Seshadri Road, Bengaluru 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos 1
and 2, Shri M. Rajakumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
Shri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to
7 - through video conference)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00235/2022
J. Gnanendra Kumar,
S/o Javaraje Goudar,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Additional Commissioner,
Karnataka Road State Road Safety Authority,
7th floor MSIL Building,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru 560 052 and
R/a No. 360, 3rd Stage, 1st Block,
Basaweshwarnagar,
Bengaluru 560 079 .... Applicant
(By Shri A. Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate - through video
conference)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Sardar Patel Bhavan, Parliament Street,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 011
6
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110 069
3. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel Administrative
& Reforms (DPAR), Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
5. Shri C.N. Sreedhara
Additional Director
Department of Survey
Settlement & Land Records
Revenue Department,
K.R. Circle, Ambedkar Veedi,
Bengaluru 560 001
6. Smt. T.K. Swaroopa,
Additional Mission Director,
Sanjeevini-KSRLPS,
Skill Development, Entrepreneurship
and Livelihood Department,
50A, JC Rd, Kumbaragundi, Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru 560 002
7. Shri M.S. Divakara,
Additional Director,
Agriculture (Human Resource Development)
Agriculture Department,
Commiserate of Agriculture,
Seshadri Road, Bengaluru 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos 1
and 2, Shri M. Rajakumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
Shri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to
7 - through video conference)
7
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022
& OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
Since common and akin issues are involved, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, OA No. 391/2022 is taken as the lead case.
2. The facts narrated in OA No. 391/2022 are as under:
The applicant was a Gazetted Probationer and entered into Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) in the year 2002. On his appointment to KAS, he was given posting as Deputy Superintendent of Excise. He was promoted to the next higher cadre of Superintendent of Excise in the year 2005. Subsequently, in the year 2009, he was promoted to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Excise and was posted to Mysore District. Then he was transferred to Bangalore South District and thereafter to Bagalkot District. While he was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bagalkot District, he was promoted as Joint Commissioner of Excise and was given posting at Belagavi 8 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Division. Presently the applicant is working as Additional Commissioner of Excise (Crime and Enforcement) Headquarters, Belagavi. The applicant claims that he is fully eligible and qualified for being considered for selection and appointment to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from Non-State Civil Services (Non-
SCS) officers of the Karnataka Cadre of the Select List 2016.
3. The Government of India, in consultation with Government of Karnataka, determined three vacancies under Non- SCS for promotion to IAS of Karnataka Cadre for the Select List of 2016 and it was conveyed through the communication dated 10.02.2017. The Government of Karnataka by the UO Note dated 06.05.2017 requested the Administrative Department to send proposal recommending the names of Non-SCS officers of outstanding merit and ability and who are within the prescribed age limit and eligible for selection to the IAS as per the criteria prescribed under Regulation No. 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 ('Regulations, 1997' for short). In response to the said UO Note dated 06.05.2017, the Finance Department by letter dated 9 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 16.06.2017 forwarded three names, including the name of the applicant. However, the Commissioner for Excise communicated to the Finance Department, Government of Karnataka that the departmental enquiry is pending against the applicant. The Finance Department did not forward the applicant's name to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) for consideration of his case for selection and appointment to IAS from Non-SCS category though there was no enquiry pending against him. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred OA No. 787/2017 before this Tribunal and sought for a direction to the Finance Department to include his name in the recommendation to be submitted to the DPAR which came to be dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.10.2018. While the applicant was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Mysore, the Lokayutka police had conducted a raid in the office of the applicant and as a consequence of the same, the Government of Karnataka issued an order entrusting the enquiry to be conducted against the applicant by the Lokayukta. The said order issued by the Government of Karnataka was challenged by the applicant in Application No. 5582/2015 on the file of the Karnataka State 10 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal was pleased to quash the order of the Government entrusting the enquiry against the applicant to the Lokayukta vide order dated 24.11.2017. This order passed by the KSAT was brought to the notice of this Tribunal in Review Application No. 75/2018, pursuant to which the said Review Application No. 75/2018 was allowed and OA No. 787/2017 was restored to file. Subsequently, this Tribunal after hearing all the parties concerned, allowed OA No. 787/2017 vide order dated 06.03.2019.
4. In the meantime, two of the officers viz., Dr. A. Lokesha, and Shri T. Venugopala Reddy - applicants in OA No. 406/2022 - whose names were proposed by the Government to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) approached this Tribunal in OA No. 883-884/2017 seeking a direction to the UPSC and others to convene the meeting for selection of officers of Non-SCS to IAS. This Tribunal vide order dated 09.02.2018 allowed the said OA No. 883-884/2017 with certain directions. Being aggrieved, the UPSC preferred Writ Petition No. 11077/2018 and 26123/2018 (S-CAT) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be 11 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE dismissed. However, the time limit prescribed by this Tribunal to finalise the selection of 2016 of Karnataka cadre was extended by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka fixing a timeframe. UPSC challenged the said order unsuccessfully before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. The applicant submits that the order of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 787/2017 remained intact there being no further challenge to the same, but not implemented. Hence, the applicant was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 29/2019 before this Tribunal. During the pendency of said Contempt Petition No. 29/2019, the State Government complied with the direction of this Tribunal in OA No. 787/2017, and thereby the Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka recommended the name of the applicant as the 16th name vide its communication dated 03.05.2019. However, UPSC by way of communication dated 07.05.2019, wrote to the State Government to re-consider the names of Non-SCS officers since the recommendation made by the State Government of 16 names being in excess of the maximum limit prescribed. Accordingly, the name 12 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE of one Shri K.R. Rudrappa came to be dropped from the proposal dated 26.12.2017, replacing with the name of the applicant vide proposal letter dated 14.11.2019.
6. Again, one Shri H.R. Rajappa filed OA No. 338/2020 before this Tribunal being aggrieved by his name not being recommended by the Committee to the State Government which came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2021. Against the said order, the said Shri H.R. Rajappa preferred Writ Petition in Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to direct the committee to consider Shri H.R. Rajappa's case in the meeting scheduled on 27.12.2021. It is the grievance of the applicant that the UPSC did not conduct a Selection Committee Meeting even after the inclusion of the name of the applicant in the proposal for selection to IAS of 2016 on one pretext or the other. However, Dr. A Lokesha, Applicant No. 1 in OA No. 406/2022, initiated contempt proceedings against the Secretary, UPSC viz., Ms. Vasudha Mishra in CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
13
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
7. In the contempt proceedings initiated by Dr. A Lokesha, Applicant No. 1 in OA No. 883-884/2017 in CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the UPSC alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Tribunal within the time allowed by the Hon'ble High Court to convene the select committee meeting, the learned counsel for UPSC on instructions submitted that if two weeks' time is granted, the respondent-accused will implement the order passed by this Tribunal dated 09.02.2018 in OA No. 883-884/2017 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, UPSC, despite having given categorical undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021, for implementing the mandate of this Tribunal dated 09.02.2018, wrote a letter dated 23.11.2021 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru requesting him to furnish a consolidated proposal excluding the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa for preparation of Select List 2016. In response to the said letter, the screening committee which met on 02.12.2021 took a decision to send a fresh proposal. Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka by its letter 14 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE dated 09.12.2021 recommended the names of 15 Non-SCS officers for consideration by including the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for selection to the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997.
8. In the pending CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 18/19.07.2022 came to the opinion that the complainant has made out a prima facie case to frame the charge against the accused and accordingly the matter was directed to be listed on 25.08.2022 for framing of charge. Similar order was passed in CCC No. 782/2021. Being aggrieved, the UPSC/Smt. Vasudha Mishra preferred SLP (C) No. 14825/2022 and SLP (C) No. 14894/2022 (Civil Appeal No. 6333/2022). The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the order dated 05.09.2022 staying the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 18/19.07.2022 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in SLP (C) No. 14894/2022 while issuing notice in SLP (C) No. 14825/2022. It was further observed that the respondent(s) are at liberty to assail the Notification dated 27.05.2022 pursuant to which selections have been made for the year 2016 of Non-SCS of 15 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Karnataka to the IAS in the appropriate substantive proceedings, if so advised. During the pendency of the said CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021 and 782/2021 and on receipt of the proposal of the Government of Karnataka dated 09.12.2021, the UPSC, by the letter dated 14.12.2021 informed the State Government that the meeting was fixed on 27.12.2021 and requested the State Government to intimate the date of meeting to all the candidates whose name find place in the proposal dated 09.12.2021.
9. The State Government granted its approval for the recommendation of the Select Committee dated 27.12.2021 and forwarded the same to the Government of India. Subsequently, the Government of India appointed the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to the Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies determined for selection list 2016 and allocated them to the Karnataka Cadre vide order dated 27.05.2022. Hence, being aggrieved by the action on the part of the UPSC in requesting the Government of Karnataka vide its letter dated 23.11.2021 to furnish a consolidated proposal for preparation of select list of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka and the response 16 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE of the Government of Karnataka in furnishing a fresh proposal dated 09.12.2021 to the UPSC and the action on the part of the select committee for considering the said proposal dated 09.12.2021 and the consequential appointment of the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to the IAS and their allocation to the Government of Karnataka, the applicant is before this Tribunal.
10. Learned senior counsel Prof. Ravivarma Kumar representing the applicant in OA No. 391/2022 submitted that the UPSC ought to have processed the proposal dated 14.11.2019 alone and no other proposal, unless there is a judicial order for inclusion or exclusion from the said proposal dated 14.11.2019. In terms of the directions of this Tribunal in OA No. 787/2017, UPSC ought to have considered the proposal dated 14.11.2019. The UPSC by writing the letter dated 23.11.2021 requesting the Government of Karnataka to furnish a consolidated proposal, nullified the order of this Tribunal thereby encroached upon the judicial power entrusted to judicial authority resulting in infringement of a basic feature of the Constitution - the Rule of Law.
17
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
11. Nextly, learned senior counsel submitted that the State Government ought not to have deleted the names of the officials whose name find place in the proposal dated 14.11.2019 for the reason that once the name of the eligible officers are considered by the State Government in adherence to Regulation No. 4 and the directions of this Tribunal dated 06.03.2019 in OA No. 787/2017, and the same was proposed to the select committee, the State Government becomes functus officio. It has no authority either to omit or alter or add any new person to the proposal dated 14.11.2019 in the absence of a judicial direction. On the other hand, with a view to confer undue favour to certain Non-SCS officers, including the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein, the State Government tinkered the proposal dated 14.11.2019 by including other 6 Non- SCS officers in the proposal dated 09.12.2021. The action on the part of the Selection Committee in considering the proposal of the State Government dated 09.12.2021 is in utter disregard to the undertaking given by the UPSC before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 18.11.2021 in CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021. Nextly, the UPSC ought to have processed the proposal dated 14.11.2019 only but processed the proposal dated 09.12.2021 submitted by the 18 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Government of Karnataka on the strength of the letter of the UPSC dated 23.11.2021. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors vs. Banaras Hindu University reported in (2022) 8 SCC Page 713.
12. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicants in OA No. 406/2022, adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant in OA No. 391/2022, submitted that the Government of Karnataka ought not to have submitted the proposal dated 09.12.2021 to the UPSC on the strength of the letter of the UPSC dated 23.11.2021. With a view to confer undue favour to certain Non-SCS officers, including the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the Government of Karnataka tinkered the proposal dated 26.12.2017 by including 6 Non-SCS officers in the proposal dated 09.12.2021 without there being any judicial direction to that effect except in the case of Dr. Y. Manjunath.
13. Inviting the attention of this Tribunal to the order dated 09.02.2018 in OA No. 883-884/2017, learned counsel submitted 19 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE that a declaration has been given by this Tribunal that the applicant and others similar to them in the proposal dated 21.12.2017 of the State of Karnataka has preeminent right to be considered for promotion by selection into Karnataka Cadre of IAS 2016. Representations submitted by the applicants at Annexures-A15 and A16 in OA No. 406/2022 seeking for convening of Selection Committee Meeting for preparation of Select List of 2016 under Non-SCS category was not considered. Civil Appeal No. 6333/2022 preferred by Smt. Vasudha Mishra challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 18.07.2022/19.07.2022, vide which the Division Bench directed the appellant Smt. Vasudha Mishra to remain present before the Court for the purpose of framing of charge clubbed with SLP (C) No. 14825/2022 (Civil Appeal No. 6915/2023) were allowed vide common order dated 07.12.2023, wherein, the impugned order (therein), were set aside observing that the question as to whether the selection process was right has to be considered in separate proceedings, which are taken by the respondents therein, before the appropriate forum. Since liberty has 20 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE been reserved for the applicants to challenge the selection process, the question of estoppel/acquiescence does not arise.
14. Learned counsel Shri Vishwanath Bhat representing the applicant in OA No. 235/2022 adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel in OA No. 391/2022 sought for the reliefs claimed.
15. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the UPSC submitted that the State Government vide letter dated 26.12.2017 forwarded the proposal to the Commission for preparation of select list of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka Cadre. On examination of the proposal, some deficiencies were observed, as such, the Commission vide letter dated 27.12.2017 requested the State Government to rectify the deficiencies so that the proposal for convening the Selection Committee Meeting can be considered as per the provisions of selection regulations. In response to the letter dated 27.12.2017, the State Government had rectified the deficiencies and requested to hold the Selection Committee 21 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Meeting. Thereafter, OA Nos. 883-884/2017 was filed by Dr. A. Lokesha and another before this Tribunal which culminated in the order dated 09.02.2018 issuing a mandate to the UPSC to process the proposal issued by the State of Karnataka and call for a Selection Committee Meeting and finalise the selection of 2016 of Karnataka Cadre within next 30 days without any reference to Regulation 5 (c). Being aggrieved, UPSC preferred Writ Petition No. 11077/2018 and the same came to be dismissed, further confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. The State Government vide letter dated 22.03.2019 requested the Commission to consider the names of 14 officers out of 15 Non-SCS officers proposed earlier vide letter dated 26.12.2017, excluding the name of Shri K.R. Rudrappa against whom disciplinary proceeding was initiated subsequently on 16.02.2019. Further, the State Government forwarded the name of Dr. Y. Manjunath also for consideration for Select List of 2016 in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in OA No. 787/2017. Further, Shri K.R. Rudrappa's name was also directed to be considered as per the interim order dated 29.04.2019 passed by 22 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE this Tribunal in OA No. 456/2019. Since the number of officers for consideration became 16, which is more than five times the number of vacancies (three), Selection Committee Meeting scheduled for 07.05.2019 was deferred requesting the state government to propose the name of Non-SCS officers not exceeding 15. Thereafter, the State Government forwarded the list of 15 officers vide letter dated 14.11.2019. Thereafter, the proposal letter dated 16.12.2019 and 06.01.2021 were forwarded by the State Government.
17. Learned counsel submitted that the Selection Committee Meeting scheduled was postponed due to the orders passed by this Tribunal/Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thus, the learned counsel argued that the applicants neither challenged the action of the candidates in withdrawing their candidature nor has sought any relief against withdrawal of candidature by them. The Commission never asked the State Government to include any new officer in the consideration zone. Whenever the number of officers in the consideration zone exceeded five times the number of vacancies, the Commission asked the State Government to propose the name 23 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE of officers in the consideration zone not more than 15 against three vacancies for preparation of Select List of 2016. Proposing the names of Non-SCS officers for consideration for selection to the IAS of a state cadre is the exclusive domain of the State Government, as such, the State Government proposed the names of Non-SCS officers vide letter dated 09.12.2021 in consonance with the provisions of the selection regulations. The names proposed by the State Government were considered by the Selection Committee in the meeting held on 27.12.2021. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Commission vide letter dated 26.05.2022 and acted upon by the Government of India appointing the officers included in the Select List of 2016 to the IAS of Karnataka Cadre vide Notification dated 27.05.2022. The applicants secured less marks than the persons selected and appointed. Thus, the applicants are estopped from challenging the recommendations of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 27.12.2021 given the fact that they have taken a calculated chance and not protested till the Select List of 2016 was made public. Thus, justifying the selection process, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OAs.
24
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
18. Learned counsel Shri M. Rajakumar representing the Government of Karnataka submitted that as per Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1997 and the determination of vacancies by the DOPT, State Government vide Unofficial Note dated 06.05.2017 sought proposal from the Secretariat Administrative Department of the State Government to send the list of officers with outstanding merit and ability to be considered for selection under the Regulations, 1997. In pursuance to the UO Note dated 06.05.2017, 37 proposals were received from 10 Administrative Departments. These proposals were placed before the Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government. The Screening Committee recommended 15 officers with outstanding merit and ability for three vacancies, as the State Government is empowered to send five times the vacancy determined. The proposal was approved by the competent authority and the same was forwarded to UPSC on 26.12.2017. After the submission of the proposal, a series of litigations were filed by the affected parties which pulled on the matter.
19. UPSC vide letter dated 23.11.2021 had requested the State Government to send the consolidated proposal (excluding the 25 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE name of Shri H.R. Rajappa) for preparation of Select List 2016, instead of the piecemeal proposal dated 14.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 06.01.2021 with updated information/status regarding pending disciplinary proceedings, pending criminal proceedings, pending penalty and integrity certificate and adverse remarks. In view of the UPSC letter dated 23.11.2021, the proposal was placed before the Screening Committee conveyed on 02.12.2021 for further consideration. The Committee noted that Shri Anil Kumar, Shri B.G. Gurupadaswamy and Shri V. Govindaraj had voluntarily submitted the letters withdrawing their candidature while Shri C. P. Narayanaswamy had already attained the age of superannuation. It was also further noticed that as per Regulation 4 (1) (iii), the number of persons proposed for consideration of the committee shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies proposed. As per the clarification sought by UPSC, Screening Committee revised the proposal as per the judicial orders and recommended the four officers.
20. The proposal was placed before the Screening Committee on 02.12.2021 wherein the committee decided to exclude the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa and further noted that Dr. K. N. Vijay Prakash 26 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE has retired on superannuation on 31.05.2021 and accordingly decided to exclude his name in view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 11848/2020 (M.S. Divakara case) and after deliberation, collectively decided and recommended for inclusion of Smt. Swaroopa T.K. and Shri C.N. Sreedhara in consolidated list. It is due to withdrawal of the candidates and superannuated officers, Screening Committee considered the two eligible officers who were initially considered in the Screening Committee Meeting held and added them (who were shortlisted originally) to make the number in the ratio of 1:5. The decision of the Screening Committee was approved by the competent authority and the proposal was sent to UPSC on 09.12.2021.
21. The daily orders issued in CCC (Civil) No. 518/2021 and 782/2021 dated 18.07.2022/19.07.2022 have been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 14825/2022 and 14894/2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court while staying the impugned orders dated 18.07.2022/19.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that the respondents therein, are at 27 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE liberty to assail the Notification dated 27.05.2022 pursuant to which selections have been made for the year 2016 of Non-SCS, if so advised. Accordingly, the present OAs are filed. Justifying the selection process, learned counsel submitted that the same requires to be confirmed by this Tribunal, rejecting the OAs.
22. Learned counsel Shri Raghavendra G. Gayatri representing the private respondents placing reliance on paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 14.09.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 11077/2018 and Writ Petition No. 26123/2018 which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in dismissing SLP (C) No. 30123-124/2018, submitted that the said order was not only confined to the applicants therein but also other eligible candidates.
23. The Commission noticing three proposal lists owing to the fact of certain candidates giving up their candidature or retired from the service during the pendency of the selection process, requested the State Government to forward the consolidated list of the candidates vide communication dated 23.11.2021. Accordingly, the name of the private respondents came to be included in the list and was forwarded by the 3rd respondent. In this background, 28 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE communication dated 15.12.2021 came to be addressed to all the candidates calling for an interview scheduled by the Commission on 27.12.2021 for the selection pertaining to the year of 2016. Accordingly, the interview was conducted and the private respondents came to be selected vide Notification dated 27.05.2022 and they were issued appointment orders on 07.06.2022. The selected private respondents reported for duty on 07.06.2022.
24. Learned counsel further placing reliance on Regulation 7 of Regulations, 1997, submitted that it is only after the process under Regulation 7 is being completed, the Commission forms a final list. The Commission is empowered under Regulation 7 clause (2) to seek for amendments and also to seek for any corrections in the list and the proviso also further provides for consultation with the State Government so also the Central Government and to proceed ahead with the amendments to the list that is so forwarded by the State Government with the approval of all the parties. Hence, the contention canvassed by the applicants that once the list is prepared for consideration by the Commission, re-doing the 29 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE consolidated list is beyond the power of the Screening Committee and the UPSC deserves to be negated.
25. Learned counsel argued that the applicants have not challenged the revised list dated 09.12.2021 and the notice for interview dated 15.12.2021. The applicants participated in the interview without any grievance and, as such, after participating in the selection process, they are estopped from challenging the selection process, further, no rights of the applicants have been taken away, after publication of final list no OA is maintainable. Learned counsel though has cited several judgments, the relevant citation would be Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
344.
26. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
27. The factual aspects are not in dispute. Regulation 3, 4, 7 of the Regulations,1997 reads thus:
30
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE "3. Determination of vacancies to be filled :-
The Central Government shall, in consultation with the State Government concerned, determine the number of vacancies for which recruitment may be made under these regulations each year. The number of vacancies shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies, as on the first day of January of the year, in which the meeting of the Committee to make the selection is held.
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 person who, having been included in an earlier Select 31 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE List, has not been appointed by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of regulation 9 of these regulations.
xxxxxx
7. Preparation of Select List by the Commission :-
(1) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee, the observations, if any, of the Central Government and the State Government concerned on the recommendations of the Committee and approve the list subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2) which shall be termed as a Select List.
(2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any amendment in the list, it shall consult the Central Government and the State Government concerned and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Central Government and the State Government concerned, may approve the list which such amendments, if any, as are in its opinion, just and proper."
28. Vacancies determined under Regulation 3 for selection and appointment to IAS from Non-SCS officers of the Karnataka Cadre of the Select List 2016 is three and there is no cavil on this determination. OA No. 391/2022 is filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, the applicant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased call for the entire records pertaining 32 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE to the letter of the UPSC dated 23.11.2021 vide Annexure-A9, the proposal of the Government of Karnataka dated 09.12.2021, the proceedings of the select committee dated 27.12.2021 peruse the same and declare that the same is arbitrary, illegal & in utter disregard to the declaration, mandate and directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal and in violation of the Regulation No. 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997 and further that the same is in violation of the rights guaranteed to the applicant under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
As a consequence thereof,
1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate order or direction to quash the following orders a. The letter bearing No. 6/8(1)/2017-AIS dated 23.11.2021 vide Annexure-A9 passed by Respondent No. 2 from the UPSC to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka in so far as the same pertains to requesting him to furnish consolidated proposal for preparation of the select list of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to IAS Karnataka.
b. The letter bearing No. DPAR 02 SAS 2017 Bengaluru dated 09.12.2021 vide Annexure-A10 passed by Respondent No. 3 from the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to the UPSC in so far as the same recommending the names of Non-SCS officers for consideration for selection to IAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997.
c. The Notification bearing No. 14015/11/2017- AIS(1)B dated 27.05.2022 vide Annexure-A14 passed by Respondent No. 1 by which the Respondent No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 5 to 7 to IAS from Non-SCS of Karnataka for the select list of 2016.33
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the UPSC to hold a meeting for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to IAS Karnataka for the year 2016 as per the proposal of the State Government dated 14.11.2019 vide Annexure-A6.
3. To issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
Identical reliefs are claimed in the connected matters. Initially, State Government had prepared a list dated 25.07.2017 for selection from among the 37 officers to the three posts that was available for the year 2016. Proceedings before the Tribunal relating to such selection started by instituting OA Nos. 1007/2016, 237/2017 and 750/2017 (Applicant No. 2 in OA No. 406/2022) which was disposed on 15.12.2017 by a common order with a direction to the respondents to immediately complete the process of appointment. Pursuant to which the State Government has sent the proposal to UPSC on 26.12.2017. UPSC having failed to convene the meeting, OA No. 883-884/2017 was filed by Dr. A. Lokesha and another which culminated in the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 14.12.2018 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s) 30123- 34 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 30124/2018 [UPSC vs. A. Lokesha & Others] in view of UPSC challenging the order dated 09.02.2018 passed in OA No. 883- 884/2017 in W.P. No. 11077/2018 & 26123/2018 (D.D:
14.09.2018). In OA No. 883-884/2017, this Tribunal has declared as under:
"The applicant and others similar to them in the proposal dated 21.12.2017 of the State of Karnataka has preeminent right to be considered for promotion by selection into IAS Karnataka Cadre of 2016."
29. In paragraph 21 of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (W.P. Nos. 11077/2018 & 26123/2018 dated 14.09.2018), it has been observed thus:
"21. Therefore, if all the above facts and law are taken into consideration, the petitioner cannot put forth such a casual contention to deny the legitimate expectation of the private respondents and other eligible candidates when there is no fault on their part and the process had also commenced as provided under the Regulations but was interrupted by judicial proceedings, which was also concluded with appropriate direction. Hence, irrespective of the fact whether any other party had derived benefit from the pending proceeding before the CAT in the first round, the fact remains that the interim order and the pendency had prevented the process from being completed. Hence the situation is to be salvaged by the Court itself by enabling the completion of the process. In such situation, the conclusion reached by CAT in the present proceedings through the order dated 09.02.2018 which is impugned herein is also justified and does not call for 35 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE interference. However since the time framing fixed by the CAT has expired, the process shall now be complied by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order."
30. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.03.2019, this Tribunal directed the applicant in OA No. 787/2017 (Dr. Y. Manjunath, applicant in OA No. 391/2022) to be considered for selection. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Tribunal referred to supra, the proposal dated 14.11.2019 has been sent by the State Government to the UPSC which has been further modified/revised as per the list dated 09.12.2021.
31. Thus, the issue now boils down to the proposal dated 14.11.2019 vis-à-vis 09.12.2021 made by the State Government insofar as recommending the names of Non-SCS officers for consideration for selection to IAS under Regulations, 1997. The names of the officers recommended as per the proposal dated 14.11.2019 and 09.12.2021 for selection to IAS are as under:
Proposal dated 14.11.2019 Proposal dated 09.12.2021 Sl. Name of the Officers Sl. Name of the Officers No. No.
1. B.G. Gurupadaswamy 1. Dr. Srinivas N
2. Dr. K.N. Vijayaprakash 2. T. Venugopal Reddy 36 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Anil Kumar 3. P. Kumar
4. Dr. Srinivas N. 4. Deepak Doreyawar
5. T. Venugopal Reddy 5. K.N. Gangadhar
6. P. Kumar 6. Dr. M.R. Ekanthappa
7. C.P. Narayanaswamy 7. J. Gnanendra Kumar
8. V. Govindraj 8. A. Lokesha
9. Deepak Doreyawar 9. R. Ramesh
10. K.N. Gangadhar 10. Dr. Y. Manjunath
11. Dr. M.R. Ekanthappa 11. B.P. Umashankar
12. J. Gnanendra Kumar 12. C. Mallikarjuna
13. A. Lokesha 13. M.S. Divakar
14. R. Ramesh 14. T.K. Swaroopa
15. Dr. Y. Manjunath 15. C.N. Sreedhara
32. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in OA No. 391/2022 and OA No. 406/2022 has placed much emphasis on the observation made by this Tribunal in OA No. 883-884/2017 inasmuch as pre-eminent rights of the applicants which of course is for consideration and the same has been done. Similarly, learned counsel for the private respondents and the State Government has placed reliance on paragraph 21 of the order of Division Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 11077/2018 and connected matter regarding 'the legitimate expectation of the private respondents and other eligible candidates' as expressed therein. Further, the observation of the Hon'ble Court that irrespective of the fact whether any other party 37 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE had derived benefit from the pending proceedings before the CAT in the first round, the fact remains that the interim order and the pendency had prevented the process from being completed plays a significant role since in the whole process now the private respondents herein, have derived benefit from the pending proceedings. Had the proceedings seen its logical end without any interruption, the scenario would have been different which indeed has become a mirage due to the factual aspects narrated above.
Now, the controversy has to be examined in the present situation where the final selection has been made and the private respondents have been appointed and reported to duty.
33. In this context, the points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether the revised proposal list dated 09.12.2021 submitted by the State Government on the request of the UPSC dated 23.11.2021, which has been acted upon is justifiable?
2) Whether the proposal dated 14.11.2019 alone deserves to be considered by the UPSC for final selection?38
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
3) Whether the final selection list issued vide Notification dated 27.05.2022 by which Respondent No. 1 appointed the private respondents to IAS from Non-SCS of Karnataka for the select list of 2016 is justifiable?
34. Re: Point No. 1: The relevant portion of the letter dated 23.11.2021 issued by the UPSC reads thus:
"3. The State Government had forwarded 15 names of Non- SCS officers (including the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa) for consideration for the Select List of 2016 for selection of Non- SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka against 3 vacancies in piecemeal vide letter dated 14.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 06.01.2021. In view of the direction/observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the Order dated 06.10.2021 in OA No. 170/338/2020, the State Government is requested to furnish consolidated proposal (excluding the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa) for preparation of the Select List of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka along with updated information/status regarding pending disciplinary proceedings, pending criminal proceedings, penalty, integrity certificate and adverse remarks.
4. This may be treated on priority so that the SCM for preparation of Select List of 2016 for selection of Non-SCS officers for appointment to the IAS of Karnataka Cadre is convened at the earliest in compliance of the Court direction."
35. Proposal list of 14.11.2019 was prepared subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 787/2017 dated 39 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 06.03.2019 filed by the applicant in OA No. 391/2022 and the name of the officers found in the said proposal 14.11.2019 is shown in the preceding paragraph 31. In the letter dated 16.12.2019, the State Government proposed the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa in lieu of Shri B.G. Gurupadaswamy, since the said officer who was one of the Non-SCS officers included in the list of 15 officers proposed vide letter dated 14.11.2019 had withdrawn his candidature. In OA No. 338/2020 (DD: 06.10.2021), this Tribunal held, the candidature of Shri Rajappa could not have been considered by the Screening Committee on 11.12.2019 and no exception can be found with the decision taken by the UPSC in excluding his name from the list forwarded by the State Government since his name was recommended after a period of about 2 and ½ years by the Administrative Department where the last cut-off date for submission of proposals was 30.06.2017 and his name was not found in the shortlisted candidates list of 37 originally determined. Shri M.S. Divakara, Respondent No. 7 herein has approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 11848/2020 to consider his candidature in the proposal of Select List 2016. The 40 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Hon'ble High Court in the daily order dated 02.11.2020 in Writ Petition No. 11848/2020 has observed thus:
"......The learned Senior Counsel submits that when the names of the candidates for selection of Indian Administrative Services against 3 vacancies of the year 2016, from the Karnataka Non- SCS Officers was short listed, the name of the petitioner was at Sl.No.17. As per the requirement, the State Government could forward a list of candidates in the ratio of 1:5. The available vacancies were 3 and therefore, a list of 15 Officers was prepared on 25.07.2017. The actual list consisted of 38 candidates and the petitioner was at Sl.No.17. The said list was sent back by UPSC for addressing certain issues. In the meanwhile, O.A.No.170/01007/2016 and connected cases were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and interim order has been passed. The said Applications were disposed of on 15.12.2017. The said order was challenged by the UPSC before this Court in W.P.Nos.11077/2018 and 26123/2018, but the same were dismissed by order dated 14.09.2018. Thereafter, two candidates who are at Sl.Nos.1 and 3, i.e. Sri.B.G.Gurupadaswamy and Sri. Anil Kumar made a request to the State Government to drop their names on the ground that they were at the verge of retirement. The State Government recommended the name of one Sri.H.R.Rajappa in the place of Sri. B.G.Gurupadaswamy. However, the Committee of the UPSC did not agree for inclusion of the name of Sri.H.R.Rajappa.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the reasons behind the UPSC declining to consider the name of Sri. H.R.Rajappa was that his name was never found short listed. Similarly, it is submitted that when CAT directed the inclusion of Dr. Y.Manjunath, it was not brought to the notice of the CAT that the name of Dr. Y.Manjunath was not found amongst the short listed candidates. It is clarified by the learned Senior Counsel that the CAT had only directed the State Government to consider the name of Dr. Y.Manjunath. It was for the State Government to have brought it to the notice of the CAT that the name of Dr.Y.Manjunath was never found in the list of recommended candidates and therefore his name could not have been recommended. Nevertheless, the submission of the learned Senior 41 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Counsel is that during the month of April, another candidate from the recommended list, at Sl.No.7 - Sri C.P. Narayana Swamy attained the age of superannuation. It is submitted that the State Government was duty bound to bring all these aspects to the knowledge of UPSC and it should have recommended the candidates next in the list, i.e., one at Sl.No.16, 17 and 18.
Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court while passing the interim order on 22.10.2020 had directed that if the State Government has not forwarded any list after it was sent back by the UPSC, no new list shall be forwarded by the State Government, till the next date of hearing. It is submitted that no new list has been forwarded by the State Government after 14.11.2019. While, pointing out to the communication dated 17.10.2020 at Annexure-L, filed along with the Memo for Additional Documents dated 29.10.2020 by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this is a communication made to all the candidates to attend the interview/oral examination that is scheduled to be held on 03.11.2020 and it is not a fresh list. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that when the matter is at the stage of the UPSC Committee conducting the interview/oral examination, this Court should not pass any order that would come in the way of the UPSC holding the interview/oral examination.
Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the additional documents filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that prima facie the State Government could not have recommended the names of the candidates who were not short listed. Even otherwise, as on date, in the list of 14 candidates for whom communication have been sent on 17.10.2020 to attend the interview/oral examination, the names of Sri.Anil Kumar and Sri. C.P.Narayana Swamy is found. As noticed earlier, Sri. Anil Kumar had voluntarily submitted his letter withdrawing his candidature while Sri. C.P.Narayana Swamy has already attained the age of superannuation. If that is the case, there is no harm in directing the State Government to recommend the name of the petitioner who was standing at Sl.No.17 in the original short listed names. On the other hand, 42 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE this Court is also of the opinion that it would not be in the interest of the State Government to stay the interview proceedings. Therefore, in order to balance the convenience of the State Government and of the petitioner, who was short listed way back in the year 2017 itself, this Court is of the opinion that the newly impleaded UPSC may go ahead with interview/oral examination, but shall not announce the result with respect to the candidates pertaining to the State of Karnataka, awaiting specific orders of this Court........."
36 The said Writ Petition No. 11848/2020 (M.S. Divakara) connected with Writ Petition No. 12872/2020 filed by Shri B.P. Umashankar and Shri C. Mallikarjuna were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide common order dated 03.02.2021 reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the CAT, if they are so aggrieved.
37. In the proposal letter dated 06.01.2021, four officers were replaced as shown in the below table against the voluntarily withdrawn candidates/superannuated candidates:
Sl. Officers in the Officers in the Remarks
No. revised proposal previous proposal
dt 06.01.2021
1. H.R. Rajappa B.G. Withdrawn
Gurupadaswamy 29.11.2019
2. B.P. Umashankar C.P. Voluntary
Narayanaswamy Retirement
30.04.2020
3. C. Mallikarjun Anil Kumar Withdrawn
11.09.2020
4. M.S. Divakar V. Govindaraj Withdrawn
03.12.2019
43
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE On a plain reading of the letter dated 23.11.2021 addressed by the UPSC it is clear that there were three piecemeal proposals dated 14.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 06.01.2021. UPSC has only directed the State Government to furnish consolidated proposal (excluding the name of Shri H.R. Rajappa). It cannot be held that no such power is vested with the UPSC as no such embargo is found in the Regulations, 1997.
38. The challenge to the impugned letter of UPSC dated 23.11.2021 and the revised proposal dated 09.12.2021 submitted by the State Government is mainly based on the principle of 'functus officio'. 'Functus officio' as per Webster's dictionary means, having performed his duty, having served its purpose. As per Ramnath Iyer's, The Law Lexicon (1997 Edition), the term 'functus officio' is defined as "A term applied to something which once had a life and power, but which has become of no virtue whatsoever". As per Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the term functus officio is defined as under: "having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore, of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer 44 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE whose term has expired and who has consequently no further official authority; and also to an instrument, power, agency, etc., which has fulfilled the purpose of its creation, and is therefore of no further virtue or effect."
39. In the case of Lalit Narain Mishra vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 2866, Division Bench of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that "Functus officio" is a Latin term meaning having performed his or her office. With regard to an officer or official body, it means without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished. "Functus" means having performed and "officio" means office. Thus, the phrase functus officio means having performed his or her office, which in turn means that the public officer is without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished.
40. Under the Scheme of Regulations, 1997, the Committee shall meet every year to consider the proposal of the State 45 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Government made under Regulation 4 and recommend the names of the persons, not exceeding the number of vacancies to be filled under Regulation 3, for appointment to the service i.e., in the ratio of 1:5. The recommendations of the Committee made under Regulation 5 shall be placed before the State Government concerned which shall forward the same to the Commission for approving as per Regulation No. 6. Thereafter, the Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee, the observations, if any, of the Central Government and the State Government concerned on the recommendations of the Committee and approve the list subject to provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7, which shall be termed as the Select List.
41. In Regulation 7 (2), it is envisaged that if the Commission considers it necessary to make any amendment in the list, it shall consult the Central Government and the State Government concerned and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Central Government and the State Government concerned, may approve the list with such amendments, if any, as are in its opinion, just and proper. Thereafter, appointment of persons who are included in the select list and are willing to be 46 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE appointed into the service, shall be made by the Central Government within a period of sixty days in the order in which the names of such persons appear in the select list in terms of Regulation 8. A conjoint reading of these provisions makes it clear that the function of UPSC comes to an end after preparing the Select List as per Regulation 7. In 7 (2), the power is conferred on the Commission to make any amendment in the list prepared by the Committee if found necessary subject to consultation with the Central Government and the State Government concerned and after taking into account the comments, if any. Hence, we find no flaw in the letter of the Commission dated 23.11.2021 in requesting the State Government to furnish the consolidated proposal, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 338/2020 dismissing the application filed by Shri H.R. Rajappa and since three piecemeal proposals were submitted. Neither nullifying of any declaration made by this Tribunal nor violation of any order has been established in addressing the letter dated 23.11.2021.
42. The Screening Committee convened the meeting on 02.12.2021 pursuant to the request made by the UPSC vide letter dated 23.11.2021. It was decided to exclude Shri H.R. Rajappa 47 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE owing to the order passed in OA No. 338/2020 and Dr. K. N. Vijayaprakash as he retired on attaining superannuation on 31.05.2021, from the list of 14.11.2019 and included two officers viz., Smt. T.K. Swaroopa and Shri C.N. Sreedhara from the existing list i.e., 37 candidates list prepared during 2017. Private respondents' names are included from the existing list of shortlisted candidates unlike Shri Rajappa's case in OA No. 338/2020. It appears the same has been done in order to satisfy Regulation 4 (i)
(iii) i.e., 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, to bring the number in the ratio of 1:5. Giving a narrow interpretation to this regulation that the maximum number being five times the number of vacancies proposed, lesser number would not vitiate the selection notwithstanding the eligible candidates available as per the list of short listed candidates, if accepted, it may result in curtailing the competition thereby reducing the quality selection for public service recruitment. It may lead to shrinking the number to minimum perhaps sometimes equal to the number of vacancies ignoring the available eligible candidates which is not the object 48 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE and purport of Regulation No. 4(i) (iii). The function of the Selection Committee, State Government and Commission comes to an end after the preparation of the Select List. Till such time, modification/revision is permissible subject to valid reasons, the same cannot be at the whims and fancies of the respondents. The right accrued to any candidate by selecting his/her name in the proposal list cannot be disturbed in a cavalier manner. In the present case, we find valid reasons for submitting a revised proposal dated 09.12.2021. It is trite that if there exists more competition and rigidity in the selection process, then there will be also more fruitful outcome of it. Just for the reason that in lieu of deletion of two candidates two other candidates from the existing short list were included, indeed, in the wider perspective of recruitment, cannot be held to be unjust and unfair when the ratio of 1:5 is maintained. The applicants are not the aggrieved persons since their candidature is duly considered by the Commission.
43. Re: Point No. 2: In view of the modified/revised proposal list dated 09.12.2021 submitted by the State Government having not been objected to by the applicants while participating in the selection process, after they being declared as unsuccessful, 49 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE they are estopped from claiming the implementation of the proposal dated 14.11.2019 for final selection. On this point, learned senior counsel Shri Ravivarma Kumar has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Rai, supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of Class IV employees to Class III working in the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, a Central University where the learned Single Judge opined that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to, whereas, the Division Bench, although, agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the procedure prescribed under the rules was violated, still proceeded to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge applying the principle of estoppel and acquiescence over and above the eligibility of BHU conditions having statutory force laid down by the statutory rules, observed thus:
"20. There is neither any provision nor any other indication in the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council for preparing such a merit list based upon the marks awarded under different heads. The promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to passing the departmental written test, once the candidate was eligible having five years' 50 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE experience in Class−IV and matriculation certificate or equivalent. The intention and object as culled out from the aforesaid eligibility procedure was that, seniority subject to qualifying the written test would be the criteria for promotion.
21. The Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in the type test, written test and interview. As per the provisions of Clause 6.4 of the Manual, type test was not mandatory. Anybody who would fail in the type test, could also be promoted subject to the rider that they would have to qualify the type test within two years from his joining.
22. What we notice is that, the Division Bench approved the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Division Bench is reproduced below:
(Banaras Hindu University vs. Krishna Rai, 2016 SCC Online All 4161 para 15) "15. Learned Single Judge as already noted above has rightly proceeded to observe that interview was not at all subscribed by the provisions holding the field. We are also of the same view that procedure prescribed ought to have been adhered to by the Board of Examiners. Board of Examiners on their own could not have changed the procedure already holding the field as laid down by the Executive Council."
23. However, the Division Bench fell in error in applying the principle of estoppel that the appellants having appeared in the interview and being unsuccessful proceeded to challenge the same and on that ground alone, allowed the appeals, set−aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench having approved the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, ought not to have interfered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge on a technical plea. The Division Bench ought to have considered that the appellants were Class−IV employees working from 1977 onwards and expecting from them to have raised serious objection or protest at the stage of interview and understanding the principles of changing the Rules of the game, was too far−fetched, unreasonable and unwarranted. 51
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
24. The case laws relied upon by the Division Bench would have no application in the facts of the present case as none of the judgments relied upon by the Division Bench laid down that principle of estoppel would be above law. It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law. The manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence."
44. There is no dispute on this legal proposition that principle of estoppel cannot override the law. In the aforesaid case, the Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in the type test, written test and interview, whereas there was no such provision nor any other indication in the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council for preparing such a merit list based upon the marks awarded under different heads. Changing the Rules of the game and in violation of the eligibility conditions laid down in paragraph 6.4 of the Manual, the Board of Examiners have conducted the interview. The appellants therein were Class IV employees working from 1977 onwards. In that context, it was held that expecting from them to have raised serious objection or protest at the stage of interview and understanding the principles of changing the Rules of the game, 52 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE was too far fetched, but in the present case, the applicants are Group A officers aspiring for IAS and they cannot be considered on par with Class IV employees. Moreover, no such flaw or change in the Rule of the game has been pleaded by the applicants in the present case.
45. As regards the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants referring to the undertaking given by the Commission before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 518/2021 dated 18.11.2021 vis-à-vis State Government issuing the proposal list dated 09.12.2021 do not survive for consideration in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6333/2022 (Smt. Vasudha Mishra case), whereby the said appeal has been allowed setting aside the impugned order therein, dated 18.07.2022/19.07.2022. In the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC Page 291 wherein it is observed thus:
"...The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity 53 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order."
Referring to the said order, in Paragraph 12 it is observed thus:
"12. In the present case also the selection process has been conducted and the question as to whether it was considered rightly or wrongly is the question to be considered in the separate proceedings, which are taken by the respondents before the appropriate forum. However, the same cannot be considered to be a wilful violation of the order, as observed by this Court, as stated hereinabove."
(emphasis supplied) Hence, the order passed in CCC (C) No. 518/2021 and connected matter would not come to the assistance of the applicants on the aspect of violation of the order.
46. Re: Point No. 3: It is significant to note that the applicants have not raised their voice against the request of UPSC made on 23.11.2021 to furnish the consolidated list and the proposal list forwarded by the State Government dated 09.12.2021. In all the orders passed by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court referred to supra, direction was issued to consider the case of 54 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE the applicants for selection. None of the applicants have been excluded in the proposal list dated 09.12.2021. Indeed, the applicants were called for interview on 27.12.2021 and, after considering the merits, selection has been done on the basis of interview and the assessment of ACRs. We have perused the original records placed before the Tribunal along with duly sworn affidavit of Dr. Manoj Soni, Chairman, UPSC dated 28.03.2024 in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.02.2024. Bonafides and genuineness of the selection process has not been disputed except the challenge made to the competency of the Commission to call for the consolidated proposal list vide request letter dated 23.11.2021 and forwarding of the revised proposal list dated 09.12.2021 by the State Government. It is trite that judicial review of the selection process is limited. On perusal of the original records, no arbitrariness and lack of bonafides found in issuing the selection list. It is well-settled that the Tribunal cannot assume the role of the selection committee/commission and/or sit in appeal over the decision taken thereon relating to overall assessment of the eligible candidates coming within the zone of consideration for selection. 55
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
47. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481, the Hon'ble Apex Court, following the decision in R.S. Dass vs. Union of India, (1986) Supp SCC 617, observed as follows:
"7. ... In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative... Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India [1986 Supp SCC 617 : (1987) 2 ATC 628] in which Capoor Case [(1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : (1974) 1 SCR 797] was also distinguished.
8. ... we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration..."
Thus, it is not for this Tribunal to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee/Selection Committee. As such, we find no ground to 56 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE interfere with the appointments made vide impugned Notification dated 27.05.2022 for the selection year 2016.
48. In Contempt Petition No. 29/2019 filed by Dr. Y. Manjunath, applicant in OA No. 391/2022 alleging non-compliance of the order of CAT in OA No. 787/2017 dated 06.03.2019, order was passed on 20.06.2019. The relevant extract of the said order is quoted below:
"It appears that the State Government had forwarded the name of the petitioner also to be considered. We have already held that it is the State Government who is the repository of power to decide whom should be considered while the repository of power to decide on the consideration is the UPSC. Without any doubt, all the people who have been recommended by the State Government will be considered by the UPSC. At this point of time, Shri V.N. Holla, learned counsel for the UPSC, submits that for some reason meeting could not take place and it is adjourned. Therefore, there will be a direction to the UPSC to complete it as early as possible, in any case within the next 3 weeks. At this point of time, Shri V.N. Holla, learned counsel for the UPSC, points out a distinction that the State Government had given an additional list in response to several Court orders. They were having a doubt as to whether to include them also or not. Therefore, we will clarify this point. It is the absolute right of the State Government to decide whom all should be considered. No other authority has any role to play in this. If the State Government has recommended then all those should be considered. The way in which they should (emphasis supplied) 57 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE be considered is left for UPSC to decide in accordance with the rules. This is now clarified. Therefore, they will now hold a meeting within the next three weeks and consider all the names submitted by the State Government. At this point of time, Shri V.N. Holla points out that some liberty may be granted to them to seek any additional documents also from the State Government if such documentation as already been provided is not sufficient in their opinion. This is a very reasonable request. If such a request is made to the State Government, State Government will of course immediately resolve this issue by giving whatever documents required by the UPSC. This is also clarified. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Shri V.N. Holla at our request."
This order clarifies the power of the State Government in forwarding the proposal for consideration of IAS under the Regulations.
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14894/2022 arising out of CCC No. 782/2021 dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide order dated 05.09.2022 while staying the operation and future effect of the orders impugned therein dated 18.07.2022/19.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court and all further proceedings thereto observed that "however, the respondent(s) is at liberty to assail the 58 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Notification dated 27.05.2022 pursuant to which selections have been made for the year 2016 of Non-State Civil Service of Karnataka to the Indian Administrative Service in the appropriate substantive proceedings, if so advised." Hence, learned counsel for the applicants taking shelter under this order would submit that there is no estoppel against the applicants in challenging the Notification dated 27.05.2022. Challenge may be on various grounds. In our considered view, liberty provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court to challenge the Notification dated 27.05.2022 would not come to the rescue of the applicants to wriggle out of the applicability of the principles of estoppel after participating in the selection process.
50. In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 344, in paragraph 69 and 70, it is observed thus:
"69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some 59 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.
70. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked."
51. It is significant to note that, it is not in dispute that: 1) The applicants were recommended by the Screening Committee of the State Government as per the proposal list dated 09.12.2021. 2) UPSC had called the applicants for the Selection Committee Meeting on 27.12.2021. 3) The applicants were invited to interview by the UPSC. 4) The relative merit list of all the officers including the applicants was prepared by the UPSC. 5) UPSC after following the procedures as prescribed in the Regulations had forwarded the proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting to the State Government. 6) The State Government as per Regulation 6 of the 60 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Regulations forwarded the observation of the State to the Central Government. 7) The Central Government vide Notification No. 14015/11/2017-AIS (I) B dated 27.05.2022 has appointed the selected Non-SCS officers to IAS. 8) The selected officers have reported to duty on 07.06.2022. Hence, the applicants cannot plead that their candidature was not considered for selection. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the direction of the Tribunal/Hon'ble Courts was only to consider the case of the applicants for selection, a pre-eminent right and the same cannot be termed as a positive direction for appointment.
52. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 filed by Shri H.R. Rajappa challenging the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 338/2020 vide daily order dated 22.12.2021 passed the interim order as under:
"Respondents No. 4 and 5 (UPSC) shall consider the case of petitioner in the meeting scheduled on 27.12.2021. The result of the meeting shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be declared without leave of this Court.
After such meeting, the respondents shall proceed further with the notification of appointment by noting in the appointment order that it shall be subject to the outcome of this Writ Petition".61
OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Accordingly, Minutes and Assessment sheet in respect of Shri H.R. Rajappa considered by the Selection Committee meeting has been kept in a sealed cover. In the Notification dated 27.05.2022, it has been made clear that the appointments shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 filed by Shri H.R. Rajappa before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore As such, any decision taken by this Tribunal in these OAs shall be subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
53. We find ourselves unable to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants inasmuch as considering of the proposal dated 09.12.2021 by the UPSC resulted in denial of opportunity to the applicants since none of the applicants were excluded in the proposal list dated 09.12.2021. There was no guarantee that the applicants would have been selected and appointed to the subject posts in the event of the proposal dated 14.11.2019 was considered by the Commission and no such relief could be now granted ignoring the proposal dated 16.12.2019 and 06.01.2021 submitted by the State Government pursuant to the directions issued in the judicial orders. The points framed above are 62 OA.No.170/00391/2022, OA No. 170/00406/2022 & OA No.170/00235/2022/CAT/BANGALORE answered accordingly subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
54. For the discussions made hereinabove, we find no merit in the OAs. Resultantly, OAs stand dismissed, however, subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 19842/2021 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
No order as to costs.
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/