Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27982/2013. Case: State of Gujarat Vs Natvarlal Motilal Chavda. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27982/2013
JudgesJasti Chelameswar and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ.
IssueAdministrative Tribunal Act - Section 19; Indian Administrate Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - Rule 8; Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 - Rule 3; Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Regulations 3, 5, 5(5), 6, 6A, 7, 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 9, 9(1), 10; Constitution of India - Articles 1...
Judgement DateAugust 12, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


Arjan Kumar Sikri, J.

1. The present special leave petition is filed against the final judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 delivered by the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 2210 of 2005. Vide the impugned judgment, the Court has partly allowed the writ petition and has granted certain consequential benefits to Respondent No. 1 interpreting the provisions of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. At the same time some strings, in the nature of certain conditions, are attached as well.

2. Respondent No. 1 was directly recruited as Mamlatdar in 1977 and then promoted as Deputy Collector in 1983 in Class-I cadre of Gujarat Administrative Service(GAS). Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional Collector in 1995 and transferred and posted as Secretary, Slums Clearance Board on 20.02.2003. On 22.09.2003, the State Government sent a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission(UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India along with the list of prospective candidates for selection and appointment in IAS cadre and that list included at serial No. 6 the name of Respondent No. 1. By notification dated 15.06.2004 of the Government of India, through Department of Personnel and Training, 10 members of the State Civil Service of Gujarat were appointed in the Indian Administrative service against the vacancies of the year 2003, on probation with immediate effect, until further orders, Under Rule 8 of the Indian Administrate Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954. And that list omitted the name of the Respondent No. 1, even though by notification of the same date, i.e. 15.06.2004, the select list of 11 State Civil Service Officers, including Respondent No. 1, was notified. That select list was approved by the UPSC and prepared by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 18.11.2003.

3. The position which emerges from the aforesaid is that the name of Respondent No. 1 herein was duly forwarded by the State Government for induction in IAS cadre. The UPSC considered the names and selected 11 persons from the State Civil Service Officers. In this list, issued vide notification dated 15.06.2004, name of Respondent No. 1 was included meaning thereby UPSC found him fit for appointment in IAS cadre. However, in another notification of the even date, name of the Respondent was excluded from appointment. The reason given was that the State Government had informed the UPSC vide its letter dated 18.12.2003 that it had decided to withdraw the integrity certificate in respect of the Respondent by another letter dated 27.05.2004, the state Government had also informed the UPSC that a charge-sheet was issued to the Respondent. On that basis, UPSC had sent letter dated 11.6.2004 to the Central Government pointing out that it had approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 18.11.2003, with the modification that inclusion of the name of Respondent No. 1 in the select list would be provisional and subject to clearance of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and grant of integrity certificate by the State Government.

4. Respondent No. 1 challenged his exclusion by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in the form of OA filed Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Taking note of the aforesaid developments, the Tribunal did not interfere with the decision of the Government and the only direction given was to expeditiously bring to an end two inquiry proceedings against him.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid outcome, Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the Tribunal by means of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Gujarat Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. His primary submission was that on 18.11.2003 when his candidature was considered, there was nothing against him and no charge-sheet was issued either. Therefore, his name should not have been withheld merely because some charge-sheet was issued much after the said date. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT