AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This contempt application has been filed by the petitioners
challenging violation of the order of this Court dated 20 th November,
2013, passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 2526 of 2012.
The Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 2526 of 2012,
was registered by this Court on its own motion in relation to filling up the
vacancies of the I.A.S cadre from the Non-State Civil Services Cadre.
Since the working strength of the IAS Officers in the State of
Jharkhand has gone down almost half of the sanctioned strength, which
were existing at the time of creation of the State of Jharkhand and the
posts were not being filled up in time, this issue was taken up as Public
Interest Litigation. It was also observed by this Court that the Officers of
the State were not making recommendation for nomination of IAS for
Non-State Civil Services Cadre employees and for State Civil Services
Cadre employees for which the posts are getting lapsed. Timely actions
are not being taken by the State in this affect. In the said PIL on 20 th
November, 2013, it was submitted that the Jharkhand Government has
made recommendations for nomination of IAS Cadre for 33 posts for the
year 2010-2011. It was also mentioned that the State has also received
sanction for this nomination and the said posts will be filled up as early
as possible. The dispute narrowed down in respect of 3 posts of Non-
State Civil Services Cadre to be nominated for IAS Cadre. In view of the
said position as the dispute narrowed down to 3 posts, a direction was
given that without any further delay, the Department of Personnel &
Training, Government of India, shall scrutinize the same in accordance
with the rules and regulations applicable to these candidates and will
send necessary papers to the Union Public Service Commission before
31st December, 2013. It was expected from the Union of India that this
process will be completed so that the posts, in question, may not lapse
because of afflux of time. With this direction, the said Public Interest
Litigation was disposed of.
Alleging violation of the said order, the present contempt
application has been filed by one Uday Shankar Sahay and another.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
order passed by this Court has not been complied with, as a result of
which these petitioners were not considered and thus they suffered grave
injustice. It is further submitted that this contempt is only concerned
with the vacancies of the year 2012, i.e. for the vacancy period 01.01.2011
to 31.12.2011, notified by Notification dated 31.03.2012, i.e. for the
vacancy year/select year, 2012. Learned counsel further submits that the
Union of Indian only notified the vacancies on 17.10.2012 after several
repeated requests from the State, which clearly shows the lethargic
approach of the Government of India. On 23.11.2012, the State invited
applications from the eligible Non-State Civil Services Cadre candidates
and the last date for submission of such application was 13.01.2013. The
Meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 21.02. 2013 and as per
these petitioners, they were found fit for recommendation for
consideration by the U.P.S.C. for promotion to I.A.S. It was submitted
that on 05.08.2013, the State sent the proposal to the UPSC but on
19.08.2013, the UPSC refused to accept the said proposal on the ground
that the processes expired w.e.f. 31.12.2012. The State on 19.10.2013 and
21.10.2013, requested the Union of India to revalidate the vacancies for
the select year, 2012 (vacancy year 2011). The petitioners claim that their
names were recommended during the said period. It was submitted that
in view of the said background, the writ application was disposed of on
20.11.2013 with a direction to scrutinize the request of the State and to
revalidate the vacancies. It is further submitted that the vacancies were
actually of the year 2011 and the same were determined and the process
had to be completed at the earliest and the respondent delayed the
matter and now they cannot say that the posts have lapsed. It is further
submitted that in the previous occasions also the vacancies were filled
up after interference of the Hon''ble Court after the period got elapsed.
Thus, the Union of India cannot take a defence that the posts have
already elapsed. It is further submitted that because of the action of the
Union of India, these petitioners, whose cases have already been
recommended, have been made to suffer for no fault on their part.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India admitted that
now the case is in respect to filling up of the vacancies of Non-State Civil
Services Officers quota of Jharkhand IAS cadre for the year 2012. It is
submitted that the Union of India examined the proposal in accordance
with the rules and regulations and, thereafter, two vacancies were
determined for preparing the select list for the year 2013, i.e. the
vacancies of the year 2012. No proposal was received by 31.12.2013 from
the State Government. Thus, the UPSC invoked the regulation 5 (c) of the
Selection Regulation, which empowers the Commission to declare that it
is not practicable to hold a meeting of the Selection Committee.
Subsequently, two vacancies were determined for the select year 2014,
i.e. vacancies for the year 2013, which was acted upon and the list was
approved. It has been submitted that thereafter, on regular occasions the
vacancies are being filled up and there is no latches on the part of the
Union of India. So far as the period in dispute, i.e. the vacancies arising
between 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, is concerned, the Union of India
submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training had
determined three vacancies to be filled up from Non- State Civil Services
cadre by letter dated 17.10.2012. It is submitted that the Government of
Jharkhand could not discharge its duty by sending the requisite
proposals to the UPSC by 31.12.2012 as a consequence of which the
UPSC returned the proposal with a request to get the vacancies for the
year 2013 determined by the Government of India, Department of
Personnel & Training and forward a complete proposal for the year 2013
vide letter dated 19.08.2013. It has been submitted that in terms of the
regulation and rules applicable, the Department of Personnel & Training
again determined the vacancies in terms of the Court''s order for
preparing the select list of 2013 (vacancy year 2012). It has been
submitted that the unfilled vacancy is carry forwarded and determined
as per the provision of Rules and Regulations.
After hearing the parties, we find that the UPSC had returned the
recommendation on the ground that the posts have already elapsed and
unfilled vacancy has been carried forward. It is an admitted case that the
Selection Committee Meeting was not held by 31.12.2012,
meaning thereby, the vacancies, which arose from 01.01.2011 to
31.12.2011 could not be filled up. The Meeting for filling up the vacancies
as per the Government of India had to be filled up by 31.12.2012. The
Selection Committee Meeting could not be held by 31.12.2012. As per the
Union of India the process for the year 2012 came to an end and the
processes for the year 2013 was required to be started afresh. As per the
petitioners, their names were recommended against the vacancies, which
arose from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011. If, as per the Union of India, the
vacancies are carried forward, then if the petitioners'' cases were
recommended, the posts should have also been carried forward for the
next year. It is not known to this Court whether the cases of the
petitioners were recommended for the subsequent year or not. If
vacancies actually arose, for the next subsequent year and if the
petitioners fulfill the criteria to be recommended, their names should
have been recommended against the subsequent vacancies or the carried
forward vacancies. As per the respondent-Union of India, the unfilled
vacancy is carried forward, and if that is so, then if a person has already
been recommended against the unfilled vacancies, which could not be
filled up because of not holding a meeting during that calendar year,
then it is expected that the cases of those persons should again be
recommended for the next subsequent year if they are eligible.
As we find that there is nothing on record to suggest as to
whether the cases of these petitioners were recommended for the next
subsequent year or not, we are not in a position to give any positive
direction in the case. Therefore, we direct the State to consider the case
of the petitioners for recommending their names for the post of IAS from
the Non-State Civil Service cadre against the future vacancies, if the
petitioners are found eligible.
Before parting this, we hold that in this contempt application the
petitioners are espousing their personal grievance. From the records
strictly speaking we find that no contempt is made out. We find that
there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this
Court. Further, there is no direction in the PIL either to promote the
petitioners or there is any direction to consider their cases. So we hold
that no contempt is made out.
With this observation and direction, this contempt proceeding is
disposed of.