LexPARMESHWAR PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G PARMESHWAR PRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. OCTOBER 30, 2001 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISW AMY RAJU, .JJ.] Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, I 956-Regulation 3( 1 )-Non-State Civil Service Officer-Appointment to I.A.S. cadre by selection-Recommendation by parent department-Not con- sidered since the meeting of the State Scrutiny Committee for the relevant years, not held-Non-consideration/or subsequent year on the ground that the candidate had crossed the outer age limit-Claim for consideration on the ground that there was a lapse or omission on the part of State Scrutiny Committee to hold the meetings-Held, .claim cannot be sustained since there is no obligation on the State Scrutiny Committee to have annual consideration for appointment by selection method-Indian Administrative Service (Appoint- ment by Promotion) Regulations, I955. Appellant was a Non~tate Civil Service Officer. His name was rec- ommended in the year 1994 for appointment by selection to the I.A.S. cadre by his parent department. Since no meeting of the State Scrutiny Committee for short listing of candidates for the years 1994-95 and 1995- 96 was held, the proposal regarding the appellant did not materialise. Subsequently, name of the appellant was again recommended in the year 1996. However, the State Scrutiny Committee did not consider his name since he h~d crossed 54 yean of age as on 1.4.1996. The appellant filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal assailing his non-con· sideration as a lapse or omission on the part of State Scrutiny Committee in not holding the meetings annually. The Tribunal dismissed the applica- tion holding that unlike the statutory obligation under I.A.S. (Appoint· meht by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 to have annual selection for ap- pointment by promotion no such duty was cast under the I.A.S. (Appoint- ment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 for such annual consideration in respect of appointment by selection method. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H HELD: 1. Central Administ~ative Tribunal was justified in reject- 506 PARMESHWAR PRASAD v. U.0.1. 507 ing the claim of appellant holding that there is no statutory obligation A under I.A.S. (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 to have an annual consideration of candidates for appointment by selection method. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal accord with the relevant Rules and Regulations governing selection for appointment of Non-State Civil Serv- ice Officers. (509-E] B 2. Regulation 3(1) of the 1956 Regulations only envisages that the State Government may, from time to time, consider by way of selection the cases of persons not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in connection with the affairs of the State. The provisions contained therein also interdict the State Government from considering cases of persons, C who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year in which the cases of the persons are considered and consequently, no claim can be asserted in derogation of such stipulation. In the instant case, the vacancies being only two, the number of officers proposed for the consideration of the Selection Committee by the State Government shall D not exceed five times the number of vacancies, and as a matter of fact, ten eligible persons under the said category have been proposed by the State Government. The omission or lapse, if any, on the part of the State Scru- tiny Committee, which is meant to short-list the candidates proposed by the Heads of various departments of the Government, is purely an internal working arrangement and such a selection cannot be equated to considera- tion and selection by the Select Committee envisaged under the Regula- tions. (510-D-F] Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, (1996] 6 SCC 721; Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 575; T. Sham Bhat v. Union of India & Am:, [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 340 and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1910, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Central Administra- tive Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 213 of 1997. Amrendra Sharan, Anil Kumar, S. Ali Khan and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Appellant. E F G .I H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.