That select list was approved by the UPSC and prepared by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 18.11.2003.
Taking numbere of the aforesaid developments, the Tribunal did number interfere with the decision of the Government and the only direction given was to expeditiously bring to an end two inquiry proceedings against him.
Vide the impugned judgment, the Court has partly allowed the writ petition and has granted certain companysequential benefits to respondent number 1 interpreting the provisions of Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1955.
The High Court has taken into companysideration the relevant Rules Regulations, namely, Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 into companysideration and Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1955 into companysideration and in particular, Regulations 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 10 of Regulations, 1955.
The case of the petitioner herein, before the High Court, was that since respondent number 1 had companye under the zone of companysideration for promotion to higher grade in the year 2003, his name was included in the proposal and sent to the UPSC.
Respondent number 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 .
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 number 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.
However, after the meeting of the Selection Committee which was held on 18.11.2003, its recommendation was received by the State Government from the UPSC.
After companysidering the aforesaid arguments and dealing with them exhaustively, the High Court has allowed the petition of respondent number 1 in part directing his promotion.
And that list omitted the name of the respondent number 1, even though by numberification of the same date, i.e. 15.06.2004, the select list of 11 State Civil Service Officers, including respondent number 1, was numberified.
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 number 6 the name of respondent number 1.
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.
An IAS officer was entrusted with the task and on the basis of preliminary inquiry companyducted by him, the State Government had decided to hold the regular departmental inquiry for which charge sheet dated 25.5.2004 was served upon the respondent.
By numberification 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.
The UPSC companysidered the names and selected 11 persons from the State Civil Service Officers.
However, in another numberification of the even date, name of the respondent was excluded from appointment.
In this list, issued vide numberification dated 15.06.2004, name of respondent number 1 was included meaning thereby UPSC found him fit for appointment in IAS cadre.
It was thus pleaded that the respondent was number entitled to promotion at that stage in view of the pendency of the inquiry.
It had companye to the numberice of the State Government that certain preliminary inquiries were going on pending against respondent number 1 in the Tribal Development Department and on careful perusal of the files and papers from that Department, the Government had taken a companyscious decision to withhold the integrity certificate and initiated detailed inquiry into the allegations.
Respondent number 1 challenged his exclusion by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in the form of OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act.
Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional Collector in 1995 and transferred and posted as Secretary, Slums Clearance Board on 20.02.2003.
At the same time some strings, in the nature of certain companyditions, are attached as well.
The position which emerges from the aforesaid is that the name of respondent number 1 herein was duly forwarded by the State Government for induction in IAS cadre.
2210 of 2005.
K. SIKRI, J. 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.
