S.Puttaswamy vs Union Of India & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5128 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P. (C.) No.406/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 10.12.2009

S.Puttaswamy                                            .... Petitioner
                       Through Mr.Anilendra Pandey, Advocate


                                Versus


Union of India & Ors                                 .... Respondents
                       Through Mr.A.S.Singh,    Advocate   for  the
                               respondent No.1
                               Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the
                               respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI


1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

*

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent

No.2 has produced the minutes of the meeting of the Selection

Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of Indian Administrative

Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1995 for preparation of

yearwise list of members of the State service of Karnataka for promotion

to Indian Administrative Services.

From the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee for

2005, it is evident that the candidates were assessed on the basis of

their service record and on the basis of their overall relative assessment,

the merit list was drawn up. We, therefore, do not find any error in the

order of the Tribunal dated 3rd July, 2008. The petitioner appears to

have been graded according to his service records for the past five

years. There were only six vacancies and other candidates with the

same grading as that of the petitioner, but who were senior to the

petitioner had been selected. In the circumstances, non selection of the

petitioner cannot be faulted. The procedure followed by the selection

committee in its meeting appears to be in accordance with Regulation

5(4) of the promotion regulations. The grading of the officers for 2005,

including the petitioner is, as detailed by the Tribunal in paras 25 to 27

of the order dated 3rd July, 2008 which is impugned by the petitioner in

the present writ petition.

The petitioner was not eligible for consideration for 2003 and

2004 and therefore, cannot contend that some of the candidates for

those years had criminal cases pending against them and therefore,

ought not to be considered. In any event, the petitioner could not have

been considered against the vacancies of 2003 and 2004 as he was not

eligible in those years. The Tribunal had noted that as per records

furnished by the State Government no criminal/disciplinary

proceedings were pending against the officers and integrity certificates

had been furnished.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show anything

to the contrary so as seek interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction.

The plea of the petitioner that he ought to have been graded

`outstanding' on account of his three ACRs having grading of

`Outstanding' is also misconceived. The grading by the selection

committee for the purpose of assessing the relative merit was not based

only on the grading in the ACRs, but on the service records. On the

basis of the service record the petitioner was graded ` Very Good' and he

cannot be allowed to contend that he should have been graded

`Outstanding' by the selection Committee as well.

From the record produced by the respondents, none of the pleas

and contentions raised by the petitioner is made out. In the

circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference with

the order of Tribunal dated 3rd July, 2008. The writ petition is without

any merit and it is therefore, dismissed

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

Tribunal by its order dated 3rd July, 2008 had directed the respondent

no.3, State of Karnataka, to consider the representation that may be

made by the petitioner to the `average' report of the applicant, and to

take an appropriate decision thereon. Since the order of the Tribunal

has not been interfered with by this Court in the writ petition filed by

the petitioner, he shall be entitled to seek implementation of the said

direction. With these directions, this petition stands disposed off.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

DECEMBER 10, 2009                                       VIPIN SANGHI, J.
k