Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURTValidity of High Court order - Whether restriction of the candidates to be considered, who were otherwise eligible, was permissible under IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954 – Violation of Regulation 4(1) of I.A.S. (appointment by selection) Regulation 1997 and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- Once a candidate comes into the zone of consideration and satisfies all the requirements he cannot be told that merely because he is junior in the seniority, his name will not be forwarded for consideration - The rule requires that from amongst the outstanding officers, 15 names are to be forwarded to the Central Government, and hence it is possible that amongst these 15, a junior officer may as well figure, depending upon the assessment of his merit - He cannot be eliminated merely on the ground that he is a junior officer, and that if selected he will write the ACRs of his superiors. If the rules for selection contain a requirement, the same has to be applied uniformly and strictly, and none from the eligible group can be eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than those which are provided in the rules - If there is a criteria laid down for selection, the Administration has to confine to the same, and it cannot impose an additional criterion over and above whatever has been laid down - If that is done, it will no longer remain an exercise of discretion, but will result into discrimination - It will mean treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and denying equal opportunity to some of them in the matter of public employment on the basis of a criterion which is not laid down, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India - If the rules were to provide that in the event of large number of persons coming into the zone of consideration, the names of the senior most alone will be forwarded, then it would have been a different situation - In the absence any such restrictive rule, the decision of the respondents cannot be justified. The appellant is entitled to such a positive declaration – Appeal allowed, set-aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as of the Central Administrative Tribunal, modify the relief as prayed in the O.A., and hold that the decision of the Respondents not to consider the appellant for the selection, amounted to her being treated dissimilarly, though she was situated similarly to the recommended officers - The decision was violative of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution - However, the selection for the year 2011 was over, even before the interim application in the CAT was decided - Setting aside the selection conducted some two years back, and asking the respondents to re-do the exercise after considering the appellant and other similarly situated candidates, would create lot of uncertainty, in as much as the appellant and such other similarly situated candidates, might or might not finally succeed in the selection process - Hence, it will not be proper now to set aside the selection of the selected candidates - Therefore, though this declaration is being granted, viz. that the appellant and persons situated like her were entitled to be considered by the committee, no further relief in that behalf can be granted to them - The opinion rendered by us will have to operate prospectively in the matter of application of the concerned rules, for the future selections. The non-consideration of her claim was totally unjust - because the CCT had acted to reduce the zone of consideration, contrary to the rules, and inspite of a letter dated 1.7.2010 from the Principal Secretary Revenue (CT-I) Department, which had clarified that the Commissioner may send the proposals of the eligible candidates of the cadre of ACs and above, who were of outstanding merit - The award of damages is necessary also because, a message must go down that those who are responsible for administration of the State cannot trample upon the rights of others on the grounds which are unsustainable in law - State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to pay the damages of rupees fifty thousand to the appellant additional to the litigation cost of rupees twenty five thousand – Decided partly in favour of Appellant.
|