On the basis of this certificate, Post Metric Scholarship meant for low income group students came to be awarded to Ibo Pishak Singh.
A perusal of the aforesaid records does show that the appellants name had been companysidered in 1974, 1976, 1977, 1980 by the Selection Committee.
With this end in view, the appeal was once heard on 20.10.94, when need for perusal of the service record of the appellant from 1970 till 1982 and proceedings of the Selection Committee from 1974 till 1980 was felt.
Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.
256 of 1978.
Ultimately, the name of the appellant came to be recommended in 1981 and he was subsequently promoted.
This had companye to happen because of the issuance of a certificate by the appellant in favour of one Ibo Pishak Singh stating that his total income was Rs.
The appellant approached Gauhati High Court with the aforesaid grievance which gave rise to Civil Rule No.
The writ petition stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench by operation of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
It is to be further found that in 1974 the number recommendation was number only due to number issuance of integrity certificate by the companycerned officer of the State which, it may be stated, was because of some disciplinary proceeding pending against the appellant, relating to his integrity which proceeding came to be dropped afterwards, but also because the Selection Committee took numbere of adverse remarks in the ACRs of the appellant and observed that his speed in working output was slow and he was censured in 1969 70.
The need for perusal of the aforesaid documents was felt because the case of the respondent State Manipur is that name of the appellant had been duly forwarded to the Selection Committee which had companysidered his case also in its meetings which were held in 1974, 1976, 1977 and 1980 but the appellant was number found fit and the Selection Committee did number recommend his name for promotion.
L. Hansaria, J. The appellant has a grievance that his fundamental right under Article 16 has been infringed by number promoting him in the Indian Administrative Service in time as required by the companycerned provisions governing the promotion to that Service.
This grievance has taken on aggravated form because of promotion of his juniors.
