Original Application No. 118 of 2010 with Original Application No. 184 of 2010. Case: 1. K. K. Remani, Additional Secretary to Government Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram, 2. Dr. P. N. Premchandran, Managing Director, Small Farmers Agree Business Consortium (SFAC), Government of Kerala Vs 1. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, 2. Additional Chief Secretary, In-charge of Devaswom, Thiruvananthapuram, 3. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, 4. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, 5. Union of India represented by Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Government of India, 6. Chairman, Guruvayoor Devaswom, 7. Ratheesan, Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom, 8. M. Gireesh Kumar, Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Thiruvananthapuram, 9. Ratheesan, Deputy Development Commissioner, Now working as Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), 10. K. K. Ramani, Additional Secretary, Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 118 of 2010 with Original Application No. 184 of 2010 |
| Counsel | N. N. Sugunapalan, S. Sujin, N. K. Thankachan, N. Manoj Kumar, Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, M. K. Aboobacker, V. Krishna Menon, K. R. B. Kaimal, B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, O. V. Radhakrishnan, Rekha Vasudevan, Sumathi Dandapani, Jebi Mather, M. V. S. Nampoothiry |
| Judges | K. Thankappan (Judicial Member) & K. George Joseph (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 - Section 14; Right to Information Act, 2005 |
| Judgement Date | May 17, 2010 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. George Joseph (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
The Original Applications No. 118/10 and No.184/10 were heard together as the main and common prayer of the applicants therein is for their inclusion in the select list for filling up two vacancies for appointment to the IAS cadre of Kerala by selection of non-SCS officers for the year 2009.
While the applicant in OA No. 118/10 challenges the inclusion of Shri Ratheesan (Respondent No.6) only in the zone of consideration and inclusion in the select list for 2009, the applicant in OA No. 184/10 challenges the inclusion of two more over and above Shri Ratheesan in the zone of consideration and inclusion of two of them including Shri Ratheesan in the said select list.
-
The fact that the select list for 2009 yet to be notified, does not contain the names of the applicants is not disputed by the parties and, therefore, it is taken as an admitted fact. An interim stay order dated 09.03.10 for maintaining status quo in regard to the select list operates until further orders.
-
To state the facts of the case briefly, the Government of India notified two vacancies for appointment to the IAS cadre of Kerala by selection of non-SCS officers for the year 2009 vide letter dated 8.5.2009. The Secretaries to the Government of Kerala nominated 24 non-SCS officers out of which 10 officers were shortlisted by the Chief Secretary for inclusion in the zone of consideration for selection to IAS cadre based on the guidelines dated 1.4.2009. The applicants and the party respondents in both of the OAs are in the zone of consideration. The select list under preparation consisting of two officers other than the applicants is cleared by the Government of Kerala and Government of India and is going to be approved by the UPSC shortly. If the party respondents are excluded from the select list for 2009 on the ground of their wrong inclusion in the zone of consideration, then the applicants, can be included in the said select list. Hence the OAs.
-
The OA No. 184/10 is taken up as the main OA as it is having a wider canvass. The applicant herein is an officer of the Agriculture Department of Government of Kerala with 28 years of meritorious Service. He stood first in the rank list based on the marks awarded to the nominated officers. He was suspended from Service on 26.09.2009 on an alleged frivolous complaint. He was reinstated in Service on the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No. 30752/2009 and was posted as Managing Director, Small Farmers Agri. Business Consortium, in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala on 26.11.2009. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary had sent a list of 10 officers in the zone of consideration, excluding the applicant, to the Union Public Service Commission on 24.11.2009. As per interim order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.11.2009, his name was also included as additional 11th person. It took about 3 months for the applicant to extract the information about the illegality in preparing the rank list for shortlisting officers in the zone of consideration from a recalcitrant authority. The applicant contended that the non-scrutiny of the data to substantiate his specific contribution in formulating and implementing new initiatives and programmes of the department and non awarding of marks under 5(ii) of Annexure A4 guidelines is highly malafide. Even then he secured 84.2 marks, the highest awarded to the nominated officers. The applicant further contended that had Shri M. Gireesh Kumar(R5) and Smt. K.K. Ramani (R7) not been wrongly given 10 marks under 'specific contribution', they would have ranked 16 and 18 respectively in the rank list and would have been out of the zone of consideration. The 6th respondent Shri V. Ratheesan is not having 8 years of continuous Service under the State Government as on 1.1.2009 as his Service as Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom from 19.1.2007 to 1.1.2009 / 29.01.2010 and Secretary of District Tourism Promotion Council, Kannur from 1.12.1999 to 31.07.2000 are not coming within the State Government Service. If the 10 marks awarded for 'good Service entry' in complete derogation of para 5(iii) of Annexure A-4 guidelines is deleted, he would rank No. 17 and thus, would be out of the zone of consideration like R5 and R7. R5 to 7 are liable to loose the chance of being considered for the selection to the IAS cadre of Kerala for the year 2009 and the applicant is liable to be placed at No.1 in the list of candidates in the zone of consideration. For this reason, the OA should be allowed as prayed for.
-
In the reply statement for and on behalf of respondent No.1, State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, it was submitted that it had meticulously followed Annexure A4 guidelines in shortlisting the officers to be included in the zone of consideration. Initially, the applicant was in the short list. Subsequently, he was placed under suspension on 26.09.2009. An officer under suspension cannot be included in the zone of consideration.
Therefore, his name was excluded from the short list. However, as per direction of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 33375/2009, the applicant's name was included as 11th candidate. It was further submitted that respondents No. 5 to 7 were given 10 marks under the category of 'specific contribution' and 11 applicants including the applicant were given 10 marks for good Service entry respectively under 5(ii) and 5(iii) of the Annexure A4 guidelines. It is claimed that it is the prerogative of the 1st respondent to interpret and award marks to the various items as specified in the guidelines.
Whether a nominee is to be awarded marks to the item 'specific contribution' based on the evaluation and finding made by the Minister of the Department is a matter coming within its purview. If the applicant had any dispute as to the inclusion of the respondents No. 5 to 7 in the zone of consideration, he ought to have moved the appropriate forum prior to the interview conducted by the Selection Committee. In respect of Shri Gireesh Kumar, it is the nomination dated 29.06.2009 that was considered. The nomination dated 11.5.2009 received not in response to the letter dated 15.06.2009 has not been considered. It was submitted that the State Government does not observe any priority/ranking in sending the list of eligible candidates once they are short listed. It had never prepared any rank list as contended by the applicant but only a zone of consideration in which the applicant was also included later. Shri Ratheesan while working as Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom on deputation was included in the zone of consideration in 2008 and 2009. The Administrator of Guruvayoor Devaswom is a State Government Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector appointed by the Government and controlled by Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner who is in the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home and Vigilance) in charge of Devaswom is fully competent to nominate Shri Ratheesan.
-
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, it was submitted that shortlisting of non-SCS officers for inclusion in the list of eligible officers for consideration by the Selection Committee and preparation of suitable guidelines for nomination of non-SCS officers by the respective departments come under the purview of the State Government. The select list is made in accordance with the provisions of the selection regulations and on the basis of the marks awarded to each of the officers on the basis of the assessment of their Service records and interview as per the guidelines of the UPSC.
The marks obtained by the eligible officers on the basis of the guidelines of the Government of Kerala have no relevance as far as the Selection Committee is concerned. The State Government has clarified that the 6th respondent then holding the post of Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom, was holding the post of Deputy Development Commissioner which is the promotion post of Assistant Development Commissioner which is equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of Deputy Collector in Kerala State Civil Service vide letter dated 21.11.2009. Accordingly, his name was considered in the list of eligible officers for induction into the IAS of Kerala cadre for the select list year 2009 from non-SCS quota.
-
In the reply statement filed by the respondent No.5, it was stated that in Annexure A3 there is a clear stipulation that an officer who is facing departmental enquiry and who is having adverse remarks or doubtful integrity cannot unequivocally said to be of outstanding merit and ability. The Selection Committee determines the suitability of the persons to be included in the select list for appointment to the Service by scrutiny of Service records and personal interview in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, and the guidelines issued by the UPSC. The applicant has not mentioned about the enquiry proceedings commenced against him by Service of memo of charges dated 12.01.2010 in the OA No. 184/10 filed on 08.03.2010. What is relevant for making comparative evaluation of merit and suitability for appointment to the IAS is the Service records reflected in the individual annual confidential reports and not the credentials, testimonials and good Service entry. The Annexure A4 revised guidelines are relevant and operative for inclusion in the zone of consideration. It cannot in any manner influence the selection to be made independently by the selection committee. It is settled legal position that the recommendation of the selection committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of malafides or serious violation of statutory rules. It is equally well settled that a court cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the selection committee like a court of appeal. The respondent relied on...
To continue reading
Request your trial