AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged common order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore",,
Bench, Bangalore (''Tribunal'' for short) in Original Application No.170/01007/2016 and connected applications, so far as it relates to",,
O.A.No.170/00237/2017.,,
Heard Shri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Shri H.R.Showri, learned Counsel for respondent No.1; Shri",,
Yogesh Naik, learned Counsel for respondent No.2; Shri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.3 and 4 and Shri",,
M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel for caveator/respondent No.5.",,
Briefly stated the facts of the case are, vide select list dated 29.11.2005 issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission, Bengaluru",,
(''KPSC'' for short), 5th respondent was provisionally selected to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the same list, one Sangappa was",,
selected as an Assistant Commissioner under 2A category. Respondent No.5 challenged Sangappa''s Caste Certificate before the Commissioner,",,
Backward Classes Department & Appellate Authority for Verification of Caste and Income Certificate. By an order dated 23.01.2006, the",,
appellate authority set-aside Sangappa''s Caste Certificate. Sangappa, unsuccessfully challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.1449/2006",,
before the Dharwad Bench of this Court. On appeal, an order of status quo has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal",,
No.100388/2017.,,
After Sangappa''s Caste Certificate was set aside by Appellate Authority, respondent No.5 submitted a representation to the Government to",,
consider his case for appointment as an Assistant Commissioner under 2A category. However, he was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of",,
Police on 31.01.2006 and subsequently promoted as Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS) on 04.07.2013. Nonetheless, respondent No.5 was",,
pursuing the matter with the Government for his appointment in the Karnataka Administrative Service (''KAS'' for short). By an order dated,,
24.03.2017, he was appointed in the KAS Group-A (Junior Scale) against a supernumerary post with effect from 01.02.2006, subject to",,
outcome of final orders in Writ Petition No.1449/2006.,,
On 19.12.2016, State Government submitted a proposal containing names of 56 eligible State Civil Service (''SCS'' for short) Officers to the",,
Union Public Service Commission (''UPSC'' for short) to convene a meeting of Selection Committee for preparation of select list for promotion of,,
SCS Officers to Indian Administrative Service, in respect of vacancies for the year 2015. The said proposal did not contain 5th respondent''s",,
name. Accordingly, he filed the instant application before the Tribunal. It was considered along with two other applications and disposed of by the",,
common impugned order. In the case of 5th respondent, the Tribunal has held as follows:-",,
OA No.170/00237/2017",,
The applicant claims promotion to IAS in terms of Serial Number 14 and 15 under the post of Assistant Commissioner adjacent,,
to that of Shri.G.Jagadeesha.,,
Apparently he secured 1151 marks and Shri Sangappa secured 1152 marks in 2A category. But it was found out later that Shri,,
Sangappa may belong to Lingayath Community and have obtained a position falsely representing that he is a Kuruba.,,
Since a writ appeal is also said to be filed, we had examined the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka with anxious",,
eyes. We are impressed by the clarity of its findings. We also find that even though Shri Sangappa is still in service, the committee has",,
chosen to exclude him from consideration and he does not seem to have challenged it.,,
The State Government, on the other hand, had given back all that he had lost to Shri M.V.Chandrakanth. But the only objection",,
put forth by the State Government is that in the position of Assistant Commissioner he has not secured effective placement. But then,",,
that is not his fault and he cannot be prejudiced for fault of another coupled with the inability of the Government to detect the lacunae,,
in this.,,
Therefore we hold that the applicant Shri M.V.Chandrakanth is eligible to be put adjacent to Shri G.Jagadeesha who appears to,,
be Serial No.30. Necessarily there must be a review committee meeting after holding that the last in the list Serial No.34 to be kept,,
out of consideration for the time being. If the vacancy position is reconsidered, she may also be put in the zone of consideration.",,
Needless to say that the applicant will have the benefit of retrospective consideration.""",,
(emphasis supplied),,
Based on the above findings, the Tribunal passed following order:-",,
(2) OA No.170/00237/2017 stands allowed. A review committee meeting will be held as expeditiously as possible to consider him",,
adjacent to Shri G. Jagadeesha in Serial No.30, if necessary, by keeping out Serial No.34 or 33 as the case may be as even now her",,
selection is only provisional. Her case will be dealt with separately.""",,
Petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal have presented these writ petitions.",,
The principal contention urged by Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the Tribunal has",,
exceeded in it''s jurisdiction in directing the respondents to hold a Review Committee Meeting. Amplifying this contention, he submitted, that unless",,
5th respondent''s name is proposed by the State Government, Tribunal could not have issued any directions for consideration of 5th respondent''s",,
case. He urged that, at any rate, Tribunal could not have substituted it''s opinion with regard to 5th respondent''s eligibility for appointment in the",,
Indian Administrative Service.,,
Shri Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing for contesting 5th respondent, opposing the writ petitions, urged following contentions:",,
petitioners No.2 to 8 were not parties in the application filed by the 5th respondent before the Tribunal. Therefore, they cannot maintain",,
these writ petitions;,,
Sl. No.,Name of the Officer (Shri/Ms.),Date of Birth
,,
,,
1.,B.C.Sateesha,21.05.1974
2.,H.Basavarajendra,26.06.1967
3.,H.N.Gopal Krishna,16.05.1973
4.,Dr.N.Shiva Shankara,20.03.1971
5.,Dr.Arundathi Chandrashekar,09.07.1969
6.,Dr.M.R.Ravi (SC),04.07.1966
7.,P.N.Ravindra,31.12.1971
8.,K.Jyothi,20.07.1970
9.,C.N.Meena Nagaraj,07.01.1973
10.,Akram Pasha,01.06.1969
11.,K.Leelavathy,18.05.1966
12.,P.Vasantha Kumar (SC),04.02.1973
13.,Karee Gowda,21.07.1970
14.,Shivananda Kapashi,20.10.1967
15.,Gangu Bai Ramesh Mankar (SC),01.07.1972
16.,Kavitha S.Mannikeri,20.07.1974
17.,R.S.Peedapaiah (ST),23.03.1962
18.,G.C.Vrushabendra Murthy,18.04.1960
19.,Dr.K.Harish Kumar,07.05.1973
20.,M.R.Ravi Kumar,07.05.1972
21.,M.B.Rajesh Gowda,25.11.1970
22.,Mahantesh Bilagi,27.03.1974
23.,K.N.Ramesh,15.05.1970
24.,Patil Yalagouda Shivanagouda,22.07.1972
25.,S.Honnamba,22.09.1972
26.,R.Latha,16.06.1974
27.,K.Srinivas (SC),31.12.1972
28.,M.S.Archana,19.02.1972
29.,K.Dayananda,26.03.1976
30.,G.Jagadeesha,04.06.1974
31.,K.M.Janaki (SC),03.07.1971
32.,C.Sathyabhama,01.06.1976
33.,Rajamma A.Chowda Reddy,02.08.1965
34.,K.S.Latha Kumari (ST),22.10.1975
In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that, Tribunal''s direction to consider 5th respondent''s case ''adjacent'' to that of",,
G.Jagadeesha amounts to substitution of it''s opinion with regard to his suitability for appointment by promotion into the Indian Administrative,,
Service, resulting in transgression into Executive''s arena. This is impermissible.",,
So far as objections raised by Shri Bhagwat, with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions by petitioners No.2 to 8 are concerned, we",,
may record that, even according to him, Writ Petition filed on behalf of the 1st petitioner, namely, Smt. K.S.Latha Kumari, is maintainable.",,
Although, the names of other petitioners are found in connected cases before the Tribunal, which have been disposed of by the common order",,
impugned in these writ petitions, we deem it un-necessary to deal with the said question as writ petition filed by Smt.K.S.Latha Kumari is",,
indisputably maintainable.,,
In the light of above discussion, writ petition filed by Smt.K.S.Latha Kumari merits consideration and eminently deserves to be allowed.",,
Hence, the following order:",,
(i) Writ Petition No.1252/2018 filed by Smt.K.S.Latha Kumari, is allowed;",,
(ii) common Order dated 15.12.2017, so far as it relates to the directions issued in Original Application No.170/00237/2017, is set",,
aside; and,,
(iii) in the light of order at (ii) above, Writ Petitions No.1253-1256/2018 & Writ Petitions No.1332-1334/2018 do not survive for",,
consideration and are accordingly disposed of.,,
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed",,
of.,,
Writ Petition No.1252/2018 stands allowed.,,
Writ Petitions No.1253-1256/2018 and Writ Petitions No.1332-1334/2018 stand disposed of.,,
We make no order as to costs.,,