Jawahar Santhakumar v. Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ors

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords relating to order in OA.No.749 of 2006, dated 31.8.2007 andRA.No.27 of 2007, dated 3.10.2007 passed by the sixths respondentTribunal and quash the same by allowing the said OA and directing therespondents 1 to 3 to convene Selection Committee for reviewingpromotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004 andconsidering the petitioner for promotion thereto with all consequentialbenefits.For petitioner: Mr.Vijayanarayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar AssociatesFor R.2: Mr.K.SridharFor R.3: Mr.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P.For R.1, R.4 & R5 : No appearanceO R D E RELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The petitioner was directly recruited as the Deputy Collector bythe Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1985. It is seenfrom the materials placed on record that when the juniors of thepetitioner, including Mr.N.Mathivanan, the 4th respondent herein, werepromoted to the grade of District Revenue Officer (DRO) w.e.f.25.1.1995, without promoting him, he filed O.A.No.169 of 1995 before theTribunal, praying to consider his name for inclusion in the panel ofDistrict Revenue Officers for the year 1994, without reference to theadverse remarks and censure suffered for him in 1988. 2. The Single Member of the Tribunal, by the order dated 7.2.1995has allowed the said O.A. and directed the Government to consider theclaim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel ofDistrict Revenue Officers for 1994-95, without reference to the belatedorder of censure passed on the petitioner. Thereupon, the Governmentfiled Review Application No.70 of 1995 before the Tribunal, challengingthe competency and jurisdiction of the single Administrative Member indeciding the matter, after the Chairman demitted the office, quotingSection 5(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and a judgment ofthis Court in a Writ Petition, holding that such orders passed by asingle Member of the Tribunal are illegal since in terms of Section 5(1)of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal must consist of aChairman and other members and that a single member cannot functionunless he is authorized by the Chairman. In the said ReviewApplication, the Government also questioned the finding that adverseremarks and punishment of censure need not be a bar for inclusion of thepetitioner's name in the panel. It was also contended that thepetitioner suffered the punishment of 'censure' and had adverse remarks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and hence he was 'not found fit' by the Government to be included in thepanel of District Revenue Officers for 1994-95. The Tribunal by theorder dated 8.12.1995 directed that the orders 'to consider the claimwithout reference to the order of censure is deleted'. As against thesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed S.L.P.No.6059 of 1996before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, bythe order dated 26.8.1996 in Civil Appeal No.11025 of 1996, has remittedthe matter back to the Tribunal for its disposal on merits and inaccordance with law. On such remittal, the Tribunal, by the orderdated 26.6.2002, in Review Application No.70 of 1995, has observed asfollows:"3. Therefore, the fact that the applicant has suffered apunishment by way of censure cannot be ignored and no directioncan be given to the respondents to include the name withoutconsidering the punishment. Punishment of censure will have aneffect and will be in currency only for a period of six months.The Administrative Member also has referred to the currency forthe punishment of censure as six months and this is not refutedby the Government. The respondents have not produced any ruleor G.O. to show that the currency of punishment of censure willbe for more than six months. Therefore, the applicant also hasnot challenged the punishment of censure imposed on him and thepunishment of censure has to be taken into consideration forthe purpose of deciding as to whether the name of the applicantcould be included in the list for 1993-94. The order ofpunishment of censure is dated 24.6.1993. This punishment willbe in currency for six months so that the applicant cannot beconsidered for promotion or inclusion till 24.12.1993.""5.... No doubt, the performance of the applicant during thecheck period of five years should be considered as a whole andthe only adverse remark found during this period is thefollowing:"Satisfactory with short-comings"The Reporting Officer is the then District Collector,Chengalpattu, under whom the applicant was serving as R.D.O.,Saidapet. The period under review for this adverse remark isonly from 1.1.1989 to 15.2.1989. But, at the same time, therespondents cannot dispute the very good remarks passed by thesucceeding reporting officers for the same check period.Uniformly, all the subsequent reporting officers have commendedon the performance of the applicant as very good for twoperiods and outstanding for six periods. Moreover, the adverseremark relied upon by the State now is only to the followingeffect, "Satisfactory with short-comings". We are at a loss tounderstand as to how this can be taken as an adverse remark,because the Officer has stated that his performance issatisfactory with short-comings. Anyhow, in view of thesubsequent assessments made by more than six reportingofficers, the first remark, if we can call it as an adverse https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remark, cannot stand in the way of including the applicant'sname for the panel 1993-94. We are also now informed that eventhough the name of the applicant was included in the panel1994-95, which was actually prepared in October, 1995, whereaspersons whose names were included in the panel for 1994-95 wereall promoted early and they are juniors to applicant...."3. With such categorical observations and findings, the Tribunal,has ultimately ordered that 'the applicant is deemed to have beenincluded in the panel for 1994-95 and he is further deemed to have beenpromoted according to his due seniority from the date on which hisimmediate junior was promoted.' There is no dispute to the fact thatthis order of the Tribunal has become final. 4. The case of the petitioner is that even though the Tribunal haspassed the order as early as on 26.6.2002 and the same has also becomefinal, and in spite of his repeated representations and appeals, theGovernment has not implemented the orders of the Tribunal and after adelay of 3¼ years, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.924 Public(Special-A) Department, dated 5.9.2005 wherein it has been directed asfollows:"4. The Government therefore, direct that the name of ThiruJawahar Santhakumar, District Revenue Officer be included inthe panel of District Revenue Officer for the year 1994published in the G.O. first read above as S.No.10A below ThiruR.Venkatesan (Sl.No.10) and above Thiru N.Mathivanan(Sl.No.11) and temporarily promoted as District RevenueOfficer under General Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services notionally with effect from 25.1.1995i.e. the date of appointment of his junior viz., ThiruN.Mathivanan promoted to the grade of District RevenueOfficer."5. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile,several of his juniors were considered for promotion to the IndianAdministrative Service (IAS) and two of them i.e. the fourth and fifthrespondents herein were promoted by the order dated 20.5.2005, to theI.A.S. for the three vacancies which arose for the year 2004 by aSelection held on 18.12.2004, but, no review DPC was conducted forconsidering his promotion to the IAS afresh, following alteration of hisoriginal seniority. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.749 of 2006,challenging the order dated 20.5.2005 promoting the respondents 4 and 5to the IAS and seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conveneSelection Committee for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for thevacancies of the year 2004 and consider him for promotion thereto, withall consequential benefits. The Tribunal, holding that there is noirregularity committed by the Committee in making the relativeassessment or any violation of rules or non-application of mind ordiscriminatory approach, has dismissed the said O.A. filed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by thepetitioner.6. The consistent stand of the respondents 2 and 3 herein is thatthe name of the petitioner was also considered by the SelectionCommittee, which met on 18.12.2004, along with other DROs for promotionto IAS as per the relevant rules and regulations in the matter and whilehis name was considered, he was junior to respondents 4 and 5. It isalso contended that the Selection Committee for the year 2004 consideredhis case and assessed him only as 'good', whereas his juniors therespondents 4 and 5, were assessed as 'very good' and included in theselect list of 2004 and it cannot be said that due to non-inclusion ofhis name in the 1994 DRO panel, he was not appointed to IAS, since evenif he has been included in the 1994 year panel of DROs, based on theorders of the Tribunal and his seniority revised, the assessment of theCommittee will not change and thus the change of seniority in DRO gradewill not alter the assessment of the Committee and would pray to dismissthe writ petition.7. We have heard Mr.Vijaynarayanan, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Sridhar, appearing for the UnionPublic Service Commission and Mr.Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader,appearing for the Government of Tamil Nadu and perused the materialsplaced on record.8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Tribunal, by theorder dated 26.6.2002 has held that 'the applicant is deemed to havebeen included in the panel for 1994-95 and he is further deemed to havebeen promoted according to his due seniority from the date on which hisimmediate junior was promoted.' There is also no dispute regarding thefact that this order of the Tribunal has become final. 9. When the Tribunal, by the judgment dated 26.6.2002, rendered inthe R.A.No.70 of 1995 filed by the Government as against the order ofthe Tribunal in O.A.No.169 of 1995 has ultimately ordered that thepetitioner is deemed to have been included in the panel of DRO for 1994-95 and further he is deemed to have been promoted as DRO according tohis due seniority from the date on which his immediate junior waspromoted, and when the said judgment of the Tribunal has become final,the Government, in spite of repeated representations by the petitionerfrom the year 2003 onwards, has not bothered to implement the same in areasonable time. But, at last, has issued G.O.Ms.No.924 Public(Special-A) Department, dated 5.9.2005, with a long delay of 39 months,by which time, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the nextcadre i.e. IAS. Though no time limit was fixed by the Tribunal in itsorder dated 26.6.2002 in R.A.No.70 of 1995, to comply with itsdirections, when the said order of the Tribunal has become final, in allfairness, the Government should have implemented the order of theTribunal, within a reasonable time. Instead, it has slept over the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matter for more than 3 years, in spite of repeated appeals and requestsmade by the petitioner, as could be seen from the materials placed onrecord. No reason of any sort, has been offered on the part of therespondents for such a long delay in considering the representations ofthe petitioner, that too a direction of the judicial forum, which hasreached finality, well to the knowledge of the Government. Thisdilatory tactic exhibited on the part of the Government, takingadvantage of the fact that no time limit has been fixed by the Tribunalshould be condemned, since the said direction has become final and suchdelay in action of the Government has prejudicially affected theinterest of the petitioner, for no fault of him. This slackness ordilatory tactic exhibited on the part of the Government has costed thepetitioner, depriving him of his due consideration for the promotion,when his juniors were considered and even promoted to the IAS. Suchslackness exhibited on the part of the Government, in complying with thedirections of a judicial forum, merely taking advantage of the fact thatno time limit was fixed by the Tribunal, could not be pitted againsthim, so as to deprive him of his due and to pave way for his juniors tobecome his superiors. Such tendency should not be appreciated, at thecost of the rights of a genuine candidate. 10. In MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER [(1978)1 SCC 405], Krishna Iyer, J., as His Lordship then was, commented that"Natural justice, though varying, is the soul of the rule asfair play in action. It extends to both the fields of judicialand administrative. The administrative power in a democraticset up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionaryexecutive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice.Good administration demands fair play in action and thissimple desideratum is the fount of natural justice. Fairnessis flexible and it is intended for improving the quality ofgovernment by injecting fair play into its wheels."11. In M.S.NALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO.LTD. vs. STATE OF BIHAR[(1990) 2 SCC 48], the Honourable Apex Court has held: "Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of goodadministration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in themodern State is not abused but properly exercised. The Statepower is used for proper and not for improper purposes. Theauthority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevantconsiderations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure thatstatutory authority arrives at a just decision either inpromoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. Touse the time hallowed phrase “that justice should not only bedone but be seen to be done” is the essence of fairnessequally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness isthus a prime test for proper and good administration. It hasno set form or procedure. It depends upon the facts of eachcase. As Lord Pearson said in Pearlberg v. Varty [(1972) 2 All https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ELR 6], fairness does not necessarily require a plurality ofhearings or representations and counter-representations.Indeed, it cannot have too much elaboration of procedure sincewheels of administration must move quickly."12. In MANEKA GANDHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [AIR 1978 SC597], a seven Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court has held that'reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of theConstitution'. It follows that the Government must act in a reasonableand non-arbitrary manner, otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution wouldbe violated.13. In O.KONAVALOV vs. COMMANDER, COAST GUARD REGION AND OTHERS[(2006) 4 SCC 620], it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that'the State action is restrained by the principles of reasonableness,justice and fair play.'14. Thus, citations could be multiplied since there is fairlyabundant case law regarding the fairness to be exhibited by theGovernment. 15. On direction by us, the files regarding the promotions to theIAS pertaining to the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were submitted before usby the UPSC. We have gone through the said files and found that in allthese proceedings, the petitioner has been considered only as a juniorto Mr.N.Mathivanan in the category of District Revenue Officer. 16. It is seen from the records submitted before us that during theyears 2002 and 2003, the Central Government in terms of Rule 4(2)(b) ofthe IAS (Recrusitment Rules, 1954 read with Regulation 5(1) of the IAS(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 had determined the number ofposts for recruitment by promotion as two and four respectively. Forthe said posts, for the select list of 2002, Mr.S.Murugaia andMr.D.Vivekanandan were selected and for the year 2003,Mr.D.Uthirakkumaran, Mr.V.M.Xavier Chrisso Nagayam, Mr.P.Ekambaram andMr.V.Chandrasekaran.17. As could be seen from the said records, the Chief Secretary ofthe State, by the letter dated 8.12.2003, addressed to the Secretary,Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, has stated that:"Similarly, Thiru Jawahar Santhakumar who is senior to ThiruN.Mathivanan, in the category of Deputy Collector was promotedon 20.12.1995 to the category of District Revenue Officerlater than Thiru N.Mathivanan, on 25.1.1995 and thereforeThiru S.Jawahar Santhakumar is junior in the category ofDistrict Revenue Officer to Thiru N.Mathivanan." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. Likewise, as could be seen from F.No.6/18/2003-AIS, it has beenmentioned:".... Similarly, Sh.Jawahar Santhakumar who is senior toSh.N.Mathivanan in the category of Dy.Collector is junior inthe category of District Revenue Officer to Sh.N.Mathivanan ashe was promoted later...."19. These are just examples of many such communications, emanatedfrom the Government officials, that too after the verdict of theTribunal, dated 26.6.2002, wherein it has been consistently observedthat the petitioner is junior to Mr.N.Mathivanan, though such positionhas already been clarified by the Tribunal, holding that he is senior toMr.N.Mathivanan and his seniority should be fixed appropriately. Allsuch things happened only because of the slackness or lethargic attitudeexhibited on the part of the Government and in giving a go-bye to theprinciples of fair play and non-arbitrariness, in giving implementationto a judgment of the legal forum, which has become final, thus causingunnecessary hardship to the petitioner. The non-fixation of the inter-se seniority, as has been directed by the Tribunal, within thereasonable time, besides other things, which we will discuss later, haveprejudicially affected the case of the petitioner, in getting his due.20. As this juncture, it is relevant to quote a Division Benchjudgment of this Court delivered in W.P.Nos.16712 to 16714 of 1997,dated 13.11.1997, relied on by the petitioner, wherein it has beenobserved as follows:"The Tribunal was of the view that their inter se placements asarrayed within the area or zone of consideration wouldnecessarily have had an impact also on the method, nature andextent of consideration for assessment of merits and to whatextent the same had influenced the mind of the select committeein so assessing the merits also could not be ascertained orpostulated by the CAT and therefore, in the view of theTribunal and in the light of the principles laid down by theApex Court noticed in the order, the only justifiable coursethat was permissible and rightly adopted by CAT was to setaside the list with a direction to re-consider the same inaccordance with law afresh, in the light of the revised interse seniority position. This view of the Central Tribunal belowcould not be said to be either unreasonable or vitiated by anyinfirmity in law to call for our interference."21. Even though, it has been vehemently argued on the part of therespondents, that under the rules, the seniority has no role to play,under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the abovejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are able to see thatseniority would also influence the process of selection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. When the petitioner's seniority was ordered to be re-fixed,and when such conclusion has reached its finality, for no reasonoffered, the authorities have 'slowed down' the process of including hisname in the appropriate place of seniority, and have taken 39 longmonths to implement the orders of the Tribunal, thus paving the way forthe juniors of the petitioner to climb over him. For all the abovediscussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government hascommitted an illegality on the petitioner, by not implementing theorders of the Tribunal, within a reasonable time, which is expected ofby it.Thus, had the petitioner been considered as a senior toMr.Mathivanan, as has been held by the legal forum as early as on26.6.2002, which has become final, and had the Government has revisedthe seniority list, as has been directed by the CAT, within a reasonabletime, definitely, the petitioner's name would have been within the zoneof consideration much earlier to the period when his junior's cases wereunder consideration for promotion to the IAS and would have had its ownadvantage in the process of consideration. 23. When the seniority of the petitioner was upheld by the legalforum, and when the authorities were directed to fix his seniority inthe cadre of DRO, a manifest illegality was committed to the petitionerby the Government, in ignoring his name from being selected. On thecontrary,, unfortunately, the Select Committee, have preferredMr.T.K.Ponnusamy to select him provisionally to the IAS. It is seenthat against the said Mr.T.K.Ponnusamy, criminal cases in SpecialC.C.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2003 are pending trial before the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Villupuram relating to demand and acceptance of illegalgratification, while he was functioning as Special Officer, KallakurichiCooperative Sugar Mills Limited, besides a Vigilance and Anti-corruption proceedings for acquisition and possession ofdisproportionate assets to known sources of income, are pending. On theother hand, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, no such criminalcases were reported against him. When a person's seniority was orderedto be re-fixed, and when such conclusion has reached its finality, forno reason offered, the authorities have 'slowed down' the process ofincluding his name in the appropriate place of seniority, thus pavingthe way for the juniors of the petitioner to climb over him. From theperusal of the files, it is also seen that pursuant to the re-fixationof the seniority, as ordered by G.O.Ms.No.924, dated 5.9.2005, no DPCwas conducted, to consider the case of the petitioner. 24. Now, let us deal with the other part of the argument of thelearned counsel for the respondents that since the Selection Committeehas assessed the petitioner only as 'good', even if his seniority isrevised, it will not alter the situation.25. The Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)Regulations, 1955, framed by the Government of India, in pursuance ofsub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 govern the issue.Regulation 5 the said Regulations, reads as follows:"Preparation of a list of suitable officers:- 5(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year andprepare a list of such members of the State Civil Service as are held by them to be suitablefor promotion to the Service. The number of members of theState Civil Service to be included in the list shall bedetermined by the Central Government in consultation with theState Government concerned and shall not exceed the number ofsubstantive vacancies as on the first day of January of theyear in which the meeting is held, in the posts available forthem under rule 9 of the recruitment rules. The date and venueof the meeting of the Committee to make the selection shall bedetermined by the Commission: Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held, andno list for the year in question shall be prepared when,(a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first day ofJanuary of the year in the posts available for the members ofthe State Civil Service under rule 9of the recruitment rules;or (b) the Central Government in consultation with the StateGovernment decides that no recruitment shall be made duringthe year to the substantive vacancies as on the first day ofJanuary of the year in the posts available for the members ofthe State Civil Service under rule 9 of the recruitment rules:Provided further that where no meeting of the Committee couldbe held during a year for any reason other than that providedfor in the first proviso, as and when the Committee meetsagain,the select list shall be prepared separately for eachyear during which the Committee could not meet, as on the 1stDecember of each year; (c) Explanation- In the case of joint cadres, a separateselect list shall be prepared in respect of each State CivilService; 5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the saidlist, the cases of members of the State Civil Services in theorder of a seniority in that service of a number which isequal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation(1): https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of aState where the total number of eligible officers is less thanthree times the maximum permissible size of the Select Listand in such a case the Committee shall consider all theeligible officers: Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion inthe field of consideration, the number of officers referredto in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded: Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the caseof a member of the State Civil Service unless, on the firstday of January of the year for which the Select List isprepared he is substantive in the State Civil Service and hascompleted not less than eight years of continuous service(whether officiating or substantive) in the post of DeputyCollector or in any other post or posts declared equivalentthereto by the State Government. Provided also that in respect of any released EmergencyCommissioned or Short Service Commissioned Officers appointedto the State Civil Service, eight years of continuous serviceas required under the preceding proviso shall be counted fromthe deemed date of their appointment to that service, subjectto the condition that such officers shall be eligible forconsideration if they have completed not less than four yearsof actual continuous service, on the first day of the Januaryof the year for which the select list is prepared,in the postof Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declaredequivalent thereto by the State Government. Explanation:- The powers of the State Government under thethird proviso to this sub-regulation shall be exercised inrelation to the members of the State Civil Service of aconstituent State, by the Government of that State. 5(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the membersof the State Civil Service who have attained the age of 54years on the first day of January of the year for which theSelect List is preparedProvided that a member of the State Civil Service whose nameappears in the Select List [prepared for the earlier year]before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who hasnot been appointed to the Service only because he was included[provisionally in that Select List] shall be considered for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee,even if he has in the meanwhile attained the age of fifty fouryears: Provided further that a member of the State Civil Service whohas attained the age of fifty-four years on the first day ofJanuary of the year for which the select list is preparedshall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible forconsideration on the first day of January of the year or ofany of the years immediately preceding the year in which suchmeeting is held but could not be considered as no meeting ofthe Committee was held during such preceding year or yearsunder item (b) of the proviso to sub-regulation (1)5(3A) The Committee shall not consider the case of such memberof the State Civil Service who had been included in an earlierSelect List and – (a) had expressed his unwillingness for appointment to theService under regulation 9: Provided that he shall be considered for inclusion in theSelect List, if before the commencement of the year, heapplies in writing, to the State Government expressing hiswillingness to be considered for appointment to the service; (b) was not appointed to the Service by the Central Governmentunder regulation 10. 5 (4)The Selection Committee shall classify the eligibleofficers as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ or ‘Unfit’, asthe case may be, on an overall relative assessment of theirService records. 5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the requirednumber of names, first from amongst the officers finallyclassified as ‘Outstanding’ then from amongst those similarlyclassified as ‘Very Good’ and thereafter from amongst thosesimilarly classified as ‘Good’ and the order of names inter-sewithin each category shall be in the order of their seniorityin the State Civil Service. Provided that the name of any officer so included in the list,shall be treated as provisional, if the State Government,withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such anofficer or any proceedings, departmental or criminal, are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pending against him or anything adverse against him whichrenders him unsuitable for appointment to the service has cometo the notice of the State Government. Provided further that while preparing year-wise select listsfor more than one year pursuant to the second proviso to sub-regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any ofthe select list so prepared, shall be considered for inclusionin the select list of subsequent year in addition to thenormal consideration zone and in case he is found fit forinclusion in the suitability list for that year on aprovisional basis, such inclusion shall be in addition to thenormal size of the select list determined by the CentralGovernment for such year.Explanation I: The proceedings shall be treated as pendingonly if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the officeror filed in a Court, as the case may be. Explanation II: The adverse thing which came to the notice ofthe State Government rendering him unsuitable for appointmentto the Service shall be treated as having come to the noticeof the State only if the same have been communicated to theCentral Government and the Central Government is satisfiedthat the details furnished by the State Government have abearing on the suitability of the officer and investigationthereof is essential." 26. Thus, as could be seen from Regulation 5(5), theclassification/ of an individual by the Selection Committee is verycrucial and no procedure has been brought to the notice of this Court asto how the Selection Committee offers its remarks, that too as againstthe confidential reports offered by the immediate superior officers ofthe individuals concerned. As could be seen from the UPSC FileNo.F.6/18/2003-AIS, dated 24.12.2003, pertaining to the select list of2003, the 'overall relative assessment' of the petitioner had beenadjudged as 'very good' by the Committee. But, as could be seen fromUPSC File No.F.6/18/2004-AIS, dated 18.12.2004 pertaining to the selectlist of 2004, the 'overall relative assessment' of the petitioner hasbeen adjusted just as 'good'. There is no reason, of whatsoever, as towhy suddenly the petitioner has been down-graded in hisclassification/overall rating. It is also seen that while in the selectlist of 2003, the 'overall relative assessment' of Mr.T.K.Ponnusamy wasnoted as 'unfit', for the select list of 2004, he has been adjudged as'very good'. The question hovering in our minds, as to why there issudden decline in the classification/overall rating of the petitionerand why there is sudden hike in the classification/overall rating ofMr.T.K.Ponnusamy, has been remained unanswered throughout. Our https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ endeavour to find out the reasons for such assessment by the SelectionCommittee, on a thorough perusal of the entire files submitted beforeus, ended in vain. By this, what we want to insist is that theSelection Committee, is not following the uniform standards inclassifying/overall rating the assessment of the individual, which has adirect bearing on their selection to the IAS. 27. The whole record of the confidential reports of the petitionerwould show that never there was any adverse entry against him, exceptthe sudden down-grading offered by the reviewing authority/the SelectionCommittee, that too without offering any opportunity to the petitioner,to explain. 28. We are unable to appreciate such a prejudicial attitudeexhibited on the part of the authorities concerned and the illegalityperpetuated on the petitioner. When the law mandates that a negativeentry in the confidential report of any officer has to be communicatedto him, for his comments/explanation, in the case on hand, the reviewingauthority viz. the Selection Committee, has simply down-graded theranking of the petitioner, which got the effect of making a negativeentry in his confidential report, since it has a direct bearing abouthis future prospects, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner toexplain the same. An argument was advanced on the part of therespondents that while acknowledging the Annual Confidential Reports forthe particular year, the officer has privilege to appeal before theGovernment, objection, if any, and he has not made any representation tothe Government. But, we find no material on record to show that suchdown-grading remark, which got the effect of making a negative entryagainst the individual, has been communicated to the petitioner, callingfor his remarks or objections. It is also on record that thepetitioner, only by invoking the provisions of the Right to InformationAct, has got the copies of his confidential reports and never there wasany communication from the authorities concerned about his down-grading.Thus, the action of the Government and the Selection Committee clearlyviolates the principles of natural justice and the reasonableness andfairness in action which are expected of them, are lacking in the caseon hand. Apparently, when a manifest illegality has been committed toa candidate, the petitioner in the case on hand, we are unable to acceptthe argument advanced on the part of the respondents that the SelectionCommittee, being the body to decide the matter, no interference by theCourt is called for, since such restriction would make the entirejustice rendering system a mockery. Therefore, this Court shouldexercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to set right the illegalitycommitted to an officer, who was deprived of his due, for no fault ofhim. 29. Another factor to be pointed out here is that when thepetitioner was made to run from pillar to post, virtually throwing himto knock the doors of justice, every time, even to fix his seniority, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ besides denying him his due promotion, for no fault of him, he wasslapped with a charge memo. on 18.4.2005 for which the petitioner hassubmitted his explanations on 2.6.2005 and 15.5.2007 and now it has beenbrought to the notice of this Court that the Government, by the letterNo.2335/2002-24, Public (Special-A) Department, Chennai, addressed bythe Chief Secretary to Government to the petitioner has intimated himthat the further action in the disciplinary action initiated against thepetitioner is dropped. Thus, a legal presumption would arise that thesaid unproved disciplinary proceedings itself have been initiatedagainst the petitioner, to create a black mark on the petitioner. 30. From the above discussions, the following conclusions wouldemerge:(i)The entire materials on record would show that in spite ofthe direction of the Tribunal, dated 26.6.2002, theseniority of the petitioner was not re-fixed within areasonable time by the Government, taking advantage of thefact that no time limit was fixed by the Tribunal to complywith its direction, and has issued G.O.Ms.No.924, dated5.9.2005 complying with the directions of the Tribunal, witha long and unexplained delay of 39 months, which is veryunfortunate and unfair as it has caused much prejudice tothe petitioner, since in the meantime, his juniorsrespondents 4 and 5 were promoted to IAS.(ii) Even though the petitioner's seniority was re-fixed byG.O.Ms.No.924, dated 5.9.2005, no review DPC was conductedby the respondents.(iii)When the immediate superior officer of the petitioner hasoffered overall rating as 'outstanding' in the confidentialreport of the petitioner dated 21.5.2004, by offeringreasons for the same, the reviewing authority viz. theSelection Committee, has down-graded the overall rating ofthe petitioner as a mere 'good', without offering anyreason, which has affected the prospects of the petitionerand no opportunity of any sort has been afforded to him toexplain the same.(iv) A person of doubtful integrity and against whom criminalcases are pending trial was preferred over the petitioner,though no criminal cases are pending against him, whichcannot be appreciated.(v)The further action in the disciplinary action initiatedagainst the petitioner for the certain allegedirregularities committed, while he was District RevenueOfficer (Land Estates), Corporation of Chennai was dropped.(vi)Had the petitioner's seniority was fixed within thereasonable time, as per the direction of the Tribunal andhad the petitioner's classification/overall rating wasoffered correctly by the Selection Committee, with dueregard to the overall rating offered by the immediatesuperior under whom the petitioner was working and had not a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidate of doubtful integrity was considered, definitely,the petitioner would have been promoted to the IAS. Becauseof the inaction of the Government or improper action of theSelection Committee, the prospects of a genuine candidateshould not be put at stake. It seems, the petitioner hasbeen victimized just for the simple reason that he hasapproached the legal forum for redressal of his genuinegrievances, which should not be allowed to continue.(vii) The Selection Committee and the Tribunal have miserablyfailed to assess all the aspects of the case in their properperspective. Therefore, the argument that the judicialinterference is not called for into the findings of theSelection Committee cannot be appreciated, since thefindings of the Selection Committee, based on non-application of mind, have resulted in manifest illegality tothe petitioner.For all the above discussions and reasons, this writ petition isallowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The respondents 1 to3 are directed to convene Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing thepromotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004 andpromote the petitioner to the IAS from the date when his juniors, therespondents 4 and 5 herein, are promoted, with all consequentialbenefits and by this the petitioner shall be deemed to have beenpromoted to the IAS cadre, from the date when his juniors were promoted.It cannot also be a problem to the Government, since, admittedly, forthat year, three vacancies were lying vacant and out of which, only twovacancies were filled-up by promoting respondents 4 and 5 andMr.Ponnuswamy, whose name was provisionally included in the list, wasnot selected. Therefore, in the third vacancy, the petitioner could beaccommodated. The entire process shall be completed within a period oftwelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarRaoTo1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi.3.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Public Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court compound, Chennai-600104.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.22286.+1 cc to Mr.K.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.No.21819.+1 cc to Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, Advocate, SR.No.21965.Ng (Co)krd / 23.4 W.P.No.33696 of 2007