Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Sarveswar Reddy vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 30 April, 2025
OA 21/019/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/0019 of 2025
Reserved on: 26.03.2025
Pronounced on: 30.04.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
V. Sarveswar Reddy,
S/o. V. Dharma Reddy, Aged 54 years,
Presently working as Additional Director,
Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad,
R/o. H. No. 2-3-568/3, Road No. 2-A,
Sai Nagar Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Senior Counsel
with Mr. G.S. Prasen)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 001, Rep. by its Secretary.
2. State of Telangana,
General Administration Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary.
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shazahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 069, Rep. by Under Secretary.
4. Sri K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy,
Aged 55 years, Occ: Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Now working as
Managing Director, HACA,
HACA Bhavan, Opp. Assembly, Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. Sri S. Dilip Kumar,
Aged 53 years, Occ: Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Praja Parishad, Panchayat Raj Department,
Presently working as Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, Nizamabad.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC,
Mrs. S. Anuradha, GP for Telangana State,
Mr. M. Nagaraju, SC for UPSC
Mr. A. Raghu Kumar, for R-4 & R-5)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
1
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF
VISWESWARA
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb,
SERIALNUMBER=
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=
RAO ESURU
[email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
OA 21/019/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant sought the following relief in the OA:
"...this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue an order
(a) Declaring the Notification dated 13.11.2024 appointing the 4th Respondent to the Indian Administrative Service from amongst the non-State Civil Services of Telangana under Regulation-8 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 R/w. G.O.Ms. 524, General Administration (Special. A) Department, dated 27.08.2011 and consequently set aside the Notification dated 13.11.2024; and
(b) Declare the proceedings vide Memo No. 160/5 PL-A/A3/2024 dt. 07.12.2024 in pursuance to the orders of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in OA No. 021/1901/2024, dt.
05.11.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 R/w. G.O.Ms. 524, General Administration (Special. A) Department, dated 27.08.2011 and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Memo No. 160/5 PL-A/A3/2024 dt. 07.12.2024;
(c) Declaring the shortlisting of the 5th Respondent to the interview for selection for confirmation to Indian Administrative Service from amongst the non-State Civil Services of Telangana under Regulation-8 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 R/w. G.O.Ms. 524, General Administration (Special. A) Department, dated 27.08.2011 and consequently set aside the letter No. F. No. 6/28/2024-AIS, UPSC dated 27.09.2024; and
(d) Declare that the petitioner is fully eligible for appointment to Indian Administrative Service Telangana Cadre from amongst the Non-State Civil Service Officers and consequently, appoint the petitioner to the post of Indian Administrative Service Telangana Cadre, with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other order or orders as the Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was recruited to Group I services directly and appointed as District Tribal Welfare Officer on 07.02.2007. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Director on 14.05.2010; Joint Director on 08.09.2016 and Additional Director on 10.11.2020. According to the applicant, the 4th respondent was selected as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the year 1995 under Group-II services and he was promoted as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on adhoc basis on 09.12.2005. He was further promoted as Special cadre Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide G.O. Ms. No.18, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 2 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 dt. 30.03.2021 on adhoc basis and further promoted on adhoc basis as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Services vide GO Rt. No. 371, dt. 22.08.2023. The 5th respondent was appointed as Mandal Parishad Development officer in 1999. He was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer, Zilla Praja Parishad, vide GO Rt.
No. 765, dt. 19.12.2018.
3. It is stated by the applicant that the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Telangana, vide letter dt. 01.04.2024, called for the particulars of eligible non-SCS officers in terms of GO Ms. No., dt. 27.08.2011, on or before 22.04.2024. The details of the applicant were forwarded to the Director of Tribal Welfare as he fulfilled all the eligibility conditions. It is the contention of the applicant that the 4th respondent is not eligible for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service through selection because, as per GO Ms. No. 524, dt. 27.08.2011, one must be serving in the pay scale of Deputy Collector or above, with at least 8 years of continuous service in that scale, whereas, the 4th respondent has been working since 01.10.2014 as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is lower than that of Deputy Collector and it was only upon his promotion as Special Cadre Deputy Registrar through GO Ms. No. 18, dated 30.03.2021, the 4th respondent began drawing the pay scale exceeding that of Deputy Collector.
Therefore, the 4th respondent becomes eligible only after completion of 8 years of continuous service from 30.03.2021 i.e. in 2030, but not in 2023. Despite the same, the 4th respondent was selected for appointment to IAS. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant submitted representations dt. 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 to the 2nd respondent. As there was no action on his representations, he filed OA No. 1901/2024 and this Tribunal disposed of the said OA on 05.11.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 3 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 pass a reasoned order. However, the 1st respondent issued notification dt. 13.11.2024 in the Official Gazette of India appointing the 4 th respondent to IAS from among the members of non-State Civil Services of Telangana under Regulation 3 of IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (for short "Regulations, 1997"). Further, the 1st respondent issued an order dt. 03.12.2024, computing the seniority of the 4th respondent in terms of Rule 3(3) (III) of IAS Regulations of Seniority Rules, 1987.
4. It is further submitted by the applicant that information was furnished under RTI Act on 04.12.2024 stating that the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not categorized as Group I Service in terms of the extant Rules and procedure of the Department. While so, the petitioner was issued the impugned order dt. 07.12.2024, stating that the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Services has always been a Group I post. Aggrieved by the above impugned actions, the present OA is filed.
5. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the State of Telangana filed reply statement stating that 1st respondent vide letter dt. 12.03.2024 has determined one vacancy for recruitment by selection to the Telangana Cadre of IAS for the select list of 2023 (Non-SCS). Accordingly, proposals of eligible and qualified officers have been called for from the Departments of Secretariat for preparation of the Select List and in response, applications from various Departments have been received. It is stated that, Regulation 4 of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 lay down the eligibility criteria for appointment by selection to IAS from non-SCS. A Screening Committee has screened all the applications in terms of the said Regulation 4 and after evaluation of the ACRs of officers of the last ten years, it has shortlisted five officers for consideration for appointment to IAS. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 4
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 Accordingly, in the ratio of 1:5, the State Government sent five names to the UPSC for selection, vide letter dt. 02.07.2024.
6. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent that, as per the GO Ms. No. 524, GAD, dt. 27.08.2011, the State Government declared that all the posts covered under the Group I Service be made equivalent when the officers working in such posts complete 8 years continuous service after reaching basic pay of Deputy Collector and above and in respect of the other posts, which are not covered under Group I Service, the officers, who are in the scale of pay of Deputy Collector and above with 8 years continuous service in that scale of pay be considered for the purpose of equivalence. The 4th respondent is holding the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies since 09.12.2005 and reached the basic pay of Rs.11,125/- (RPS 2005) as on 01.07.2006, which is higher than the basic pay of the Deputy Collector (Rs.10,845/-) and he has worked continuously in the basic pay higher than that of Dy. Collector for 8 years. Thereby, he has fulfilled the mandatory requirement as per the GO Ms. No. 524. Further, the 4th respondent was in the pay scale of Rs.40270-93780 (SGP) (RPS 2015) from 01.07.2013 onwards in the category of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is equivalent to that of Dy. Collector and accordingly, he has fulfilled the mandatory requirement as per GO Ms. No. 524, dt.27.08.2011. The UPSC interviewed all the shortlisted officers and based on the merit, the DOPT notified the appointment of the 4th respondent to the IAS on 13.11.2024 and allocated him to the cadre of Telangana and the said notification was re-
published by the State Government vide GO Rt. No. 1520 & 1521, dt.
13.11.2024. Subsequently, the DOPT vide letter dt. 03.12.2024 communicated the fixation of seniority in respect of the 4th respondent and allocated 2019 batch.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 5DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025
7. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has always been a Group I service, as it is the highest level post for which direct recruitment is done in the Cooperative Department. In the immediate previous round of direct recruitment, the said post was recruited under Group I Category. Even the Cooperative Department, vide letter dt. 25.10.2024, furnished the proposals to the Government for notifying the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Group I category. It is further stated that the 5th respondent was appointed as MPDO on 22.10.1999 through APPSC and reached basic pay of Rs.10,845/- as on 05.09.2007 of the Deputy Collector in the scale of pay Rs.10845-22955 of State Civil Services as per the Revised Pay Scales, 2005. The pay scale of the 5th respondent is also above the scale of Deputy Collector (i.e. 40270-93780) w.e.f. 01.07.2013 as per RPS, 2015 in the post of MPDO (SPP1A) in the scale of Rs.42490-96110/-.
8. The respondent No.4 also filed a separate reply statement and he has given the particulars of the posts he held and the pay scales attached thereto, right from 1995. The relevant grade for the purpose is Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to which, he was promoted on 07.12.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.10285-24200. He was subsequently placed in the Selection Grade Pay Deputy Registrar in 2013 in the scale of pay of Rs.40270-93780 (equivalent to Deputy Collector). Further, he was placed in SAPP.I.A (12 years scale) in 2017 in the scale of pay of Rs.42490-96110. Later on, he was promoted to Spl Cadre Deputy Registrar in the year 2021 in the scale of pay of Rs.67300-1,43,890/- and later on, as Joint Registrar of Cooperation Department in the year 2023 in the scale of Rs.76830-151000. He has further stated that as per GO Ms. No.524 dt. 27.08.2011, those officers who are not covered under Group I service will be Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 6 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 eligible for consideration to the IAS after 8 years of service after reaching basic pay of Deputy Collector and above. He reached the basic pay of Rs.11,125/- in the scale of pay of Rs.8815-18805, which is equivalent to Deputy Collector.
Further, he reached the equivalent grade of Deputy Collector scale in 2013 and as such, he is eligible for consideration under the said GO Ms. No. 524. The said GO has not been challenged by the applicant at any point of time. In fact, the applicant as well as the 4th respondent were in the select list of the Government of Telangana even in 2021, but, both of them were not selected. The applicant did not challenge the inclusion of the 4th respondent at the relevant point of time.
The names of the applicant as well as the 4th respondent were again included in the list of Non-SCS officers for selection to IAS for the year 2023 and both of them participated in the selection process, but the applicant failed in getting the selection. After failing in the selection, he resorted to challenge the inclusion of the 4th respondent in the select list as well as his selection, which is not permissible as per the verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The 4th respondent cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Madal Lal & Ors v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, and Ramjit Singh Kardan & ors v. Sanjeev Kumar & ores (AIR 2020 SC 2060), wherein it has been held that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the selection of a successful candidate after participating in the selection process on the principle of estoppel. He denied the contention of the applicant that the Deputy Registrar post is not Group I service in view of GO Ms No. 262, dt. 18.04.1990 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Service Rules. In fact, the Director of Cooperation has recently notified 20 posts of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies notified to the Government under Group I Cadre.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 7
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025
9. The applicant filed a rejoinder and written arguments. The 4th respondent also filed written arguments.
10. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material and pleadings on record including the written arguments submitted by the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant argued on the point that under Regulations, 1997, a Non-SCS officer must satisfy certain eligibility requirements to be considered for selection to the IAS. Further, as per G.O.Ms. No. 524, General Administration (Spl.A) Dept, dt. 27.08.2011, which is now adopted by the Govt. of Telangana, the officer must have at least 8 years of continuous service in a post carrying responsibilities and pay scale equivalent to that of Deputy Collector. Further, the said GO Ms. No. 524 classified certain posts as equivalent to Deputy Collector and if a post is formally designated as a Group I post, an officer holding that post would be eligible after reaching the basic pay of a Deputy Collector and if a post is not classified as Group I, then the officer must be in a pay scale equal to or higher than Deputy Collector‟s scale for 8 continuous years to claim equivalence. Learned counsel further argued that merely reaching a particular pay scale is not enough and the officer should have actually served in that equivalent scale or post for a minimum of 8 years continuously. Learned counsel argued that the 4th respondent did not fulfil the mandatory eligibility criteria at the relevant time.
12. Learned counsel submitted that, though the 4th respondent was promoted as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on adhoc basis from 09.12.2005, but was not substantively confirmed in that rank up to 2014 and as such, he held the said post on regular basis from 2014 onwards. In 2021, the 4th respondent‟s pay scale became equivalent to or higher than a Deputy Collector‟s scale, after Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 8 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 he was promoted to „Special Cadre Deputy Registrar‟ vide GO Ms. No. 18, dt. 30.03.2021, which gave him a higher grade pay. Thus, from 30.03.2021 onwards, the 4th respondent has been drawing a pay scale comparable to or exceeding that of a Deputy Collector and prior thereto, he never drew the Deputy Collector grade pay and accordingly earlier period of service cannot be counted towards the 8 years equivalence requirement. Hence, the 4th respondent would only become eligible for consideration to IAS by selection in 2029. Therefore, his inclusion in the selection and final appointment in 2024 blatantly violated the Regulation of 4 of the Regulations 1997 and the mandate prescribed under the GO Ms. No. 524.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that there is difference between Basic Pay and the Pay Scale, which has been misinterpreted by the respondent No.2 and the pay scale refers to the structured pay range fixed for a particular position, specifying the minimum and maximum salary limits attached to the rank, responsibilities and status of the post within the administrative hierarchy, whereas, basic pay represents the specific amount of salary received by an employee at a given point of time within the applicable pay scale. Learned counsel further contended that under the Regulations, 1997, read with GO Ms. No. 524, eligibility specifically requires an officer to have 8 years continuous service in a pay scale equivalent to or higher than that of a Deputy Collector. As such, the Respondent No.4 does not fulfil the criteria and does not come within the meaning of the said provision. Therefore, the decision of the Respondent No.2 is not only in contradiction and violation of the said Rules, but it also amounts to misinterpretation of the Rules. Learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the GO Ms. No. 27, dt. 13.03.2025, submitted that, for the first time, the post of Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been included under Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 9 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 Group I Services meant for direct recruitment. Learned counsel also referred to the GO Ms. No. 55 issued by the Gen. Administration Dept dt. 25.04.2022, clarifying that the post of Dy. Registrar is not classified as Group-I Post under the State Civil Services. Thereby, the inclusion of the Respondents 4 & 5 in the eligibility list itself is illegal and bad in law.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, the respondents have ignored the requirement of continuous service and have given weightage to the adhoc promotion and Special Grade, which is an attempt to stretch the Rules to cover the situation of the Respondent No.4, in contravention to the clear wording of the criteria prescribed. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.2 is selective and it amounts to inconsistent application of GO Ms. No. 524 in order to favour the Respondent No.4. With this misinterpretation of the respondent No.2, the appointment to IAS given to the Respondent No.4 cannot stand the legal scrutiny and hence, the same has to be declared illegal, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent lacked the requisite 8 years of service in an equivalent post prior to 2023 and thereby, he was ineligible at the time of selection and no amount of post-facto justification can cure this fundamental defect. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the relief sought may be granted, by allowing the OA.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the relief on the ground that, following with the Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1997, which lays down that the State Government shall consider the cases of persons, not belonging to the State Service (Deputy Collector), but serving in connection with the affairs of the State, if they satisfy the prescribed criteria and in adherence to the Rule, the 4th respondent has been selected. Learned counsel for Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 10 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 the official respondents further opposed the relief on the ground that the names of the applicant and the 4th respondent have been considered in the year 2021 also, as they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria, however, in the said selection, neither the applicant nor the 4th respondent was selected. At that time, the applicant did not raise any objection as to the inclusion of the name of the 4 th respondent in the list of zone of consideration for selection to IAS.
16. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the State of Telangana that the 1st respondent vide letter dt. 12.03.2024 has determined one vacancy for recruitment by selection to the Telangana Cadre of IAS for the select list of 2023 (Non-SCS) and thereupon, proposals of eligible and qualified officers have been called for from the Departments of Secretariat for preparation of the Select List and in response, applications from various Departments have been received. A Screening Committee has screened all the applications in terms of the said Regulation 4 and after evaluation of the ACRs of officers of the last ten years, the Committee has shortlisted five officers for consideration for appointment to IAS. Accordingly, in the ratio of 1:5, the State Government sent five names to the UPSC for selection, vide letter dt. 02.07.2024. It is further argued that, as per the GO Ms. No. 524, GAD, dt. 27.08.2011, the State Government declares all the posts covered under the Group I Service be made equivalent when the officers working in such posts complete 8 years continuous service after reaching basic pay of Deputy Collector and above and in respect of the other posts, which are not covered under Group I Service, the officers, who are in the scale of pay of Deputy Collector and above with 8 years continuous service in that scale of pay be considered for the purpose of equivalence. The 4 th respondent is holding the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies since 09.12.2005 and reached the basic pay of Rs.11,125/- (RPS 2005) as on 01.07.2006, which is higher than Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 11 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 the basic pay of the Deputy Collector (Rs.10,845/-) and he has worked continuously in the basic pay higher than that of Dy. Collector for 8 years in 2014. Thereby, he has fulfilled the mandatory requirement as per the GO Ms. No. 524. Further, the 4th respondent was in the pay scale of Rs.40270-93780 (SGP) (RPS 2015) from 01.07.2013 onwards in the category of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is equivalent to that of Dy. Collector. The UPSC interviewed all the shortlisted officers and based on the merit, the DOPT notified the appointment of the 4th respondent to the IAS on 13.11.2024 and allocated him to the cadre of Telangana and the said notification was re-
published by the State Government vide GO Rt. No. 1520 & 1521, dt.
13.11.2024. Subsequently, the DOPT vide letter dt. 03.12.2024 communicated the fixation of seniority in respect of the 4th respondent and allocated 2019 batch.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has always been a Group I service, as it is the highest level post, for which direct recruitment is done in the Cooperative Department and in the immediate previous round of direct recruitment, the said post was recruited under Group I Category. Even the Cooperative Department, vide letter dt. 25.10.2024, furnished the proposals to the Government for notifying the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Group I category. It is further argued that the 5th respondent was appointed as MPDO on 22.10.1999 through APPSC and reached basic pay of Rs.10,845/- as on 05.09.2007 of the Deputy Collector in the scale of pay Rs.10845-22955 of State Civil Services as per the Revised Pay Scales, 2005. The pay scale of the 5th respondent is also above the scale of Deputy Collector (i.e. 40270-93780) w.e.f.
01.07.2013 as per RPS, 2015 in the post of MPDO (SPP1A) in the scale of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 12 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 Rs.42490-96110/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the official respondents vehemently opposed the relief prayed in the OA and sought dismissal of the OA.
18. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 also strenuously argued by stating that the applicant was promoted to the grade of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 07.12.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.10285-24200. He was subsequently placed in the Selection Grade Pay Deputy Registrar in 2013 in the scale of pay of Rs.40270-93780 (equivalent to Deputy Collector). Further, he was placed in SAPP.I.A (12 years scale) in 2017 in the scale of pay of Rs.42490-
96110. The applicant was further promoted to SPL Cadre Deputy Registrar in the year 2021 in the scale of pay of Rs.67300-1,43,890/- and as Joint Registrar of Cooperation Department in the year 2023 in the scale of Rs.76830-151000 and as per GO Ms. No. 524 dt. 27.08.2011, those officers who are not covered under Group I service will be eligible for consideration to the IAS after 8 years of service after reaching basic pay of Deputy Collector and above. The applicant reached the basic pay of Rs.11,125/- in the scale of pay of Rs.8815-18805, which is equivalent to Deputy Collector and in 2013 and as such, he is eligible for consideration under the said GO Ms. No. 524. Learned counsel further pointed out that the said GO has not been challenged by the applicant at any point of time and in fact, the applicant as well as the 4th respondent were in the select list of the Government of Telangana even in 2021, but, both of them were not selected. The applicant did not challenge the inclusion of the 4 th respondent at the relevant point of time. The names of the applicant as well as the 4 th respondent were again included in the list of Non-SCS officers for selection to IAS for the year 2013 and both of them participated in the selection process, but the applicant failed in getting the selection. After failing in the selection, he resorted to challenge the inclusion of the 4th respondent in the select list as well Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 13 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 as his selection, which is not permissible as per the verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel rebutted the contention of the applicant that the Deputy Registrar post is not Group I service in view of GO Ms No. 262, dt. 18.04.1990 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Service Rules inasmuch as the Director of Cooperation has notified 20 posts of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Government under Group I Cadre.
19. Learned counsel further argued that the Government of Telangana finalized the integrated final seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide proceedings dt. 26.10.2024, reflecting that the 4th respondent cleared probation on 10.10.2014 and he completed 8 years mandatory service for selection to IAS in the panel year 2023 as on 01.01.2023. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the applicant, having participated in the selection, cannot challenge the very same selection wherein the 4 th respondent was appointed to IAS by selection.
20. Though the 5th respondent entered appearance through advocate, but he has not filed any reply statement.
21. To adjudicate the issue involved in the matter, Rules/ Regulations holding the field have to be considered. Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1997 reads thus:
"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 56 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: Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 14
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 Provided also that the State Government shall not consider the case of person, who, having been included in an earlier select list, has not been appointed by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of regulation 9 of these regulations. "
It is also to be noted that Screening Committee constituted for scrutiny and screening of applicants has considered and screened all the candidates in their of the said Regulations and after careful evaluation of the ACRs of the officers for the last 10 years, general assessment of the work and overall track record of the officers, shortlisted 5 officers for consideration for appointment to IAS and the State Government submitted the recommendations and proposals to UPSC.
Therefore, fair process has been followed duly complying with the relevant guidelines and regulations.
22. It is further to be noted that it is not in dispute that the applicant as well as the 4th respondent were found eligible in the years of 2021, 2022 and 2023. In the year 2021, in the selection processed, the name of the applicant as well as the respondent No.4 have been process along with other candidates. However, both were not selected. Again in the year 2022 also, the 4th respondent participated in the selection. The applicant never challenged the inclusion of the name of the 4th respondent in the list in 2021 & 2022. In the year 2023 also, both were included in the list and both of them participated in the selection process, which included short-listing level in the State, wherein the overall performance of the officers will be evaluated at two levels by the State - the first one is through a Committee consisting of three IAS officers including the Chief Secretary of the State and the next one, shortlisting and awarding marks to the extent of 50 out of 100 marks. The second part of the selection involves the DOPT as well as the UPSC where the candidates will be interviewed by a six member Committee, headed by UPSC Member, nominated by the UPSC Chairman; two senior IAS Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 15 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 Officers from Government of India appointed by DOPT and three IAS officers including the Chief Secretary of the concerned State Government. In this process, to an extent of 50 marks will be awarded on the basis of interviews. As already referred, the applicant and the 4th respondent appeared in the process, but the 4th respondent is selected.
23. It is also to be noted that the name of the applicant as well as the respondent No.4 have been included as both were qualified and eligible. It is also to be noted that it cannot be stated that Screening Committee as well as the Six-member Committee referred to above have ignored the aspect of the eligibility of the 4th respondent. It is also to be noted that the applicant raised query that the respondent No.4 does not qualify for the participation in the selection process since he has not completed minimum 8 years of service in the pay scale equivalent or higher than that of the Dy. Collector. In this regard, the relevant portion of the GO Ms. No. 524, General Administration (Special-A) Department, dated 27.08.2011 is extracted as under:
"6. After taking into consideration of the reasons indicated by the Heads of Departments on making equivalence to the post of Deputy Collector for selection into IAS and also keeping in view of the observations of High Court in its order, dt. 23.11.2010 in WP Nos. 23430, 23445 and 23452 of 2010 filed by the State Government, it has been decided to consider the posts as equivalent to that of Deputy Collector for the purpose of selection to IAS as follows:
"All the posts covered under the Group-I Service be made equivalent when the officers working in such posts complete 8 years continuous service after reaching basic pay of Dy. Collector and above. This is done keeping in view the duties and responsibilities of the various posts covered under Group-I. In respect of other posts which were not covered under Group-I, officers who are in the scale of pay of Deputy Collector and above with 8 years continuous service in that scale of pay be considered for the purpose of equivalence." This is done keeping in view the fact that they will deal with administrative matters etc., after reaching the higher level viz., Deputy Director level posts.
7. The following notification will be published in the extra ordinary Gazettee of Andhra Pradesh:
NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-regulation (iii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, and in supersession of the orders issued in GO Ms. No. 634, General Administration Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 16 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 (Special. A) Department, Dated: 24.08.2007, Government hereby declare that all the posts covered under the Group I Service be made equivalent when the officers working in such posts complete 8 years continuous service after reaching basic pay of Deputy Collector and above. In respect of other posts which are not covered under Group-I service, the officers who are in the scale of pay of Deputy Collector and above with 8 years continuous service in that scale of pay be considered for the purpose of equivalence. Xxx"
On a perusal of the record and detailed reply as well as the written arguments filed by the respondents, it is clear that the Respondent No.4 was placed in Rs.40270-93780 (SGP) w.e.f. 01.07.2013. We have perused the pay fixation order vide proceedings of the Commissioner of Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Rc. No. 2522/2015-AD1, dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure VI to the counter of the 4th respondent) and the relevant portion of the Order is extracted hereunder:
"Sub: Establishment - Cooperation Department - PRC 2015 - Fixation of Pay of Sri K. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Deputy Registrar (SGP)/Project Director, DRDA Mahaboobnagar in the Revised Pay Scales, 2015 from 01/07/2013 and release of subsequent Increments in RPS, 2015 - Orders
- Issued.
Read: 1) G.O.Ms. No. 25, Finance (HRM-IV) Department, dated 18/03/2015
2) Govt. Circular memo No. 68/1/HRM.IV/2014, Dated 04/04/2015.
3) Option of the individual Dated: 22/03/2015 *** ORDER:
In terms of Government orders and Circular Memo issued vide reference 1st and 2nd read above and with reference to the option exercised by him, the pay of Sri K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies in the Revise Pay Scales, 2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 in the time scale of Rs.40270-1110- 42490-1190-46060-1270-49870-1360-53950-1460-58330-1560-63010-1660- 67990-1760-73270-1880-78910-2020-84970-2160-91450-2330-93780 (SGP).
Existing Scale of Pay : Rs.19050 - 45850 (SGP)
Revised Scale of Pay : Rs.40270 - 93780 (SGP)"
We have also perused the Service Register extract filed by the 4 th respondent, wherein it is clear that the pay of the 4th respondent was fixed under the Revised Pay Scales 2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2023 at Rs.52,590/- in the pay scale of Rs. Rs.40270-93780. Further, from the material filed along with the counter of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 17 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 the 4th respondent, it is seen that the pay scale of Deputy Collector is Rs.40270- 93780 in 2014. Thus, it is clear that the 4th respondent was granted the pay scale equivalent to that of the Deputy Collector w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and thereby, he has completed 8 years continuous service in that pay scale by 2021 and therefore, rightly, his name was considered starting from 2021. Thus, the applicant failed to prove the ineligibility Respondent No.4 for appointment to IAS as the 4th respondent was in the pay scale equivalent that of Dy. Collector.
24. It is to be noted that the name of the applicant as well as the 4th respondent were included in the zone of consideration in the year 2021 and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the applicant, thereby, the stand taken by the applicant that the Respondent No.4 would come within zone of consideration by 2030 is not correct. If at all, the applicant was aggrieved with the inclusion of the name of the 4th respondent, he ought to have challenged the same in the year 2021 itself. Having challenged the same at the relevant point of time the applicant acquiesced to the same and thereby, he waived of his right to challenge it at a later date.
25. It is settled position of law that, having participated in the selection process, upon failure in the selection, a candidate cannot question the selection process or inclusion of a candidate in the zone of consideration. In the instant case, both the applicant and the 4th respondent, both were subjected to selection in 2021 onwards. In the year 2023 also, both participated in the selection, but the 4th respondent got the selection, whereas, the applicant could not be selected.
After failing in the selection, the applicant resorted to challenging the inclusion of the applicant in the zone of consideration on the ground of his ineligibility and the consequential selection of the 4th respondent, which is not permissible under Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 18 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 law. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent also cited judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in support of this argument.
(i) In the The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 8822-8823 of 2022 vide judgment dt. 12.12.2022, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"21.A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter, as held by this Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra):
"55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised Notification dated 12-10- 2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10- 2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. ... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."
57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345], it was held as under :
"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper."
58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792], it was held as under : (SCC p. 107, para 19) "19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] ....
xxx xxx xxx It was further observed : (SCC p. 149, para 34) „34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 19 DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh [(2008) 4 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 9] wherein, it was held as under
: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59) "59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] .... The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise."
22. In the case at hand, the un-selected candidates want to press into service a part of the 1978 Rules while accepting the 2015 Rules. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under law, as no party can be allowed to approbate or reprobate, as held by this Court in Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25:
"Approbate and reprobate
26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party. We have already dealt with the provisions of the Contract Act concerning the conduct of a party, and his presumption of knowledge while confirming an offer through his acceptance unconditionally.
xxx xxx xxx 27.2.State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu [(2014) 15 SCC 144] :
"22. The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. (Vide CIT v. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216].)
23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is com- plied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground.
(Vide Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [AIR 1969 SC 329].) In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683] this Court has ob-Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 20
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 served as under : (R.N. Gosain case [(1992) 4 SCC 683], SCC pp. 687-88, para
10) „10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that „a person can-
not say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is val- id, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage‟.‟ xxx xxx xxx
25. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. [(2013) 5 SCC 470 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 153], made an observation that a party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one know- ingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or or- der. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.
26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had."
23.The aforesaid principle of law applies to the present case. It is not open to the can- didate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules. Not only is there a difference in the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of re- cruiting authority as well. It is pertinent to note, that under the 2015 Rules, there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as the Respondents seek to contend."
(ii) In the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir on 28th March, 2023 in the Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:
"12. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selec- tion involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropri- ate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law:
i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words:Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 21
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 "9...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc....."
ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with:
"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation......."
iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119, in the following words:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxx The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a chal- lenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)".Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 22
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025 13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection pro-
cess 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 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."
26. Further, The 4th respondent cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Madal Lal & Ors v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, and Ramjit Singh Kardan & ors v. Sanjeev Kumar & ores (AIR 2020 SC 2060), wherein it has been held that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the selection of a successful candidate after participating in the selection process on the principle of estoppel. Once the applicant has participated in the selection, on his failure to succeed in the selection, he has no right to challenge the very same selection, which is made in accordance with the prescribed provisions. Every employee has a right to be considered for selection subject to fulfilment of eligibility, but he cannot claim a right to selection itself and having been subjected to selection, he cannot later on turn around and challenge the selection on frivolous grounds.
It is seen that the representation of the applicant has been threadbare considered and a reasoned and speaking order has been passed and thereby, the order of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation has been complied with. Further, the applicant cannot claim appointment as a matter of right once his performance has been assessed by the Committee constituted for the purpose and even this Tribunal has limited power of judicial review vis-à-vis assessment of performance by the appropriate Committee, which is an expert body. In this regard, the scope of the judicial review by this Tribunal in the instant case is limited.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 23DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 21/019/2025
27. In view of the above discussion, the OA, being devoid of merit, is dis-
missed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member(A) Member(J)
/evr/
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
24
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF VISWESWARA PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E= RAO ESURU [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.14 15:11:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0