Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"...to quash the proceedings and recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 13.5.2003;...to quash Annexure-10 for the ends of justice; and to direct the respondents (1 to 3) to have fresh/review meetings of the Selection Committee taking the full service particulars of the applicant and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in accordance to Rules and procedure and recommend his name for consideration for appointment to I.A.S"

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant, who is 1975 direct result to the Orissa Administrative Service (in short O. A.S) has claimed that he has rendered outstanding performance all through his service career and obtained promotion to respective higher grade (s) as and when due. The names of respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who were below him in the seniority list of O.A.S.(SG) were included in the select list whereas his case was ignored although according to his seniority position, he was eligible far consideration for appointment by promotion to I.A.S. He further submits that whereas the Selection Committee is required to follow the well established procedure as set out in the Regulations, 1955, the Selection Committee appears to have deviated from the said procedure, i.e., for the purpose of promotion, the Annual Confidential Report (in short ACR) of proceeding five years are required to be assessed objectively on the basis of the final gradings, they seem to have made their own grading. In addition, eight years' ACRs are also required to be looked into for a fair assessment of the consistency in the performance level of the officers in the zone of consideration. The applicant believes that during last eight years he had been continuously graded as 'outstanding' in his ACR and therefore, non-inclusion of his name in the select list has puzzled him. Further, that the Selection Committee has not only evaluated respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who are admittedly junior to him, superior in merit, but have also overlooked certain blemishes in their service records. He has also alleged that one Shri Satyananda Sethi, whose name finds place in the select list, was superseded once earlier in the State Service and he was relegated to 1972 batch of O.A.S. On the other hand, respondent No. 7 (Shri Jagadish Prasad Aggarwal) whose involvement in a departmental proceedings ended in punishment of 'Censure' during the year 1996 and was also superseded in State Civil Service, but his name figures in the select list. He has further submitted that respondent No. 4 (Shri Raj Kishore Jena) could not have been adjudged better than him (applicant) as his integrity was not above board. The applicant has also claimed that his ACRs from the year 1991 onwards is believed to be better than that of respondent No. 4. His further submission is that respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10, who were juniors to him in the State Civil Service, had never superseded him, even in the recent case of promotion to O.A.S. (Supertime Scale Grade). He has, therefore, submitted that with the same set of ACRs the applicant could not have been superseded by those officers. With the above facts of the case, the applicant has prayed for the reliefs as referred to above.

3. The respondents have opposed the application by filing separate counters. In its counter filed by respondent No. 2, the facts of the case have been repudiated. It has been submitted that since the application is not tenable on the facts, it should be dismissed. The main thrust of the objection of respondent No. 2 is that the applicant had filed this O.A. on the basis of a newspaper report published in the Oriya daily "The Matruvasa", vide Annexure-8 dated 17.8.2003 of the O.A. and had not challenged any order issued by the respondents. Secondly, that the Selection Committee Meeting took place strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Regulations, 1955 and that the allegations made in the O.A. have been denied. It has been submitted by respondent No. 2 that the Selection Committee, while making an overall relative assessment of 24 officers, who were in the zone of consideration for filling up of 8 vacancies for the year 2002, had examined the service records of each of the 24 officers and after detailed deliberation on the merits of the officers as indicated in the various columns recorded by the Reporting/Reviewing Officers or the Accepting Authority in the ACRs arrived at the classification as assigned to each of the officers. They have also submitted that the Selection Committee had also kept in view the orders awarding penalties or adverse remarks, if any, communicated to the officers. They have reiterated that the Selection Committee categorized only those officers as 'outstanding' in respect of whom the service records reflected that they were of outstanding merits, possessing exceptional attributes and abilities and that the Selection Committee had adopted uniform standard in categorizing the eligible officers for inclusion of their names in the select list. They have disclosed that the Committee had categorized four officers as 'outstanding' and the rest as 'very good' and had prepared the select list consisting of 8 SCS officers. The name of the applicant could not be placed in the select list because of his relative merit/seniority position vis-a-vis the officers, whose names have been included in the select list. It has been clarified that the name of Shri Satyananda Sethi was incorporated in the select list at Sl. No. 8 provisionally due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him. However, before the final notification could be issued by the Government of India, Shri Sethi had expired. With regard to the allegation that with the same set of confidential reports and service records, the applicant could not have been assessed inferior to respondents 8 and 9, for the reason that he was graded superior to them (respondents 8 and 9) while his case was considered for O.A.S. (Supertime Scale), it has been submitted by the respondents that consideration of promotion to O.A.S. (Supertime Scale) and consideration of O.A.S. officers for promotion to I.A.S. are two different aspects of the matter and that the selection to I.A.S. has been made strictly in accordance with Regulations 5(4) and as such these two aspects cannot be equated. It has been emphasized by respondent No. 2 that selection of junior officers in preference to senior officers has been made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Dass v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 593=1987(2) SLJ 56 (SC), respondent No. 2 has tried to convince the Tribunal that in the matter of promotion to I.A.S. the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee cannot be faulted. For the sake of clarity, we would like to quote hereunder the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.