R. Vasuki 03 Very Good 03 Included provisionally subject to clearance in Criminal Proceedings pending against him and grant of Integrity Certificate by the State Government.
Digitally signed by Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.11.15 162825 IST Reason A meeting of the Selection Committee for promotion to the IAS of Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004 was held on 18.12.2004 against three vacancies as determined by the Central Government.
However, on the basis of overall relative assessment, the first respondents name companyld number be included in the Select List of 2004 due to lower grading and also due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List.
The name of the first respondent was companysidered by the said Committee along with the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Finding numberirregularity by the Selection Committee in making the relative assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the first respondent.
4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS.
The first respondent then filed review application in RA No.27 of 2007 in OA No.749 of 2006 seeking review of the Tribunals order dated 31.08.2007 and the said review petition came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007.
Aggrieved by his number appointment to the IAS, the first respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal CAT , Madras Bench.
Being aggrieved, Union Public Service Commission UPSC and the Government of Tamil Nadu have preferred these appeals.
The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2007 holding that the first respondents name was included by the State Government in the list of officers eligible for companysideration for the year 2004 and accordingly, the Selection Committee companysidered the first respondents ACRs and made a relative assessment of all the officers under companysideration.
The High Court also pointed out that for another person by name Shri T.K. Ponnusamy who was rated Unfit in 2003, was rated as Very Good in 2004 and there is numberreason for such sudden hike in the classification overall rating of Shri T.K. Ponnusamy.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, the first respondent filed writ petition in WP No.33696 of 2007.
The Tribunal pointed out that the Selection Committee makes its own assessment on the basis of entries made in the various companyumns and after discussion within the Committee, finally arrives at a classification Outstanding, Very Good, Good and Unfit to be assigned to an officer.
The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal by holding that the Selection Committee and the Tribunal failed to assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and directed the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to companyvene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for the year 2004 and promote the first respondent to the IAS from the date when his juniors were promoted with all the companysequential benefits.
The High Court held that when T.K. Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was pending, was preferred over the first respondent for inclusion in the Select List, the same cannot be appreciated.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were included in the Select List have been appointed by the Government of India by Notification dated 29.04.2005.
The position in the Eligibility List EL , Selection List SL and the overall relative assessment ORA as assigned by the Selection Committee in respect of the first respondent vis vis that of the officers included in the Select List are as under Year Respondent Name Position of Selected Officers No.1s Position SL 2004 Name EL ORA SL Vacancy 03 In EL S.No.04 TK Ponnusamy 01 Very Good 01 Size of SL 03 ORA Good N Mathivanan 02 Very Good 02 Zone of Consideration 09 In SL Not included Smt.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of 2007 in and by which the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the appellants and Union of India DoPT to companyvene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service IAS for the year 2004 and promote the first respondent herein to the IAS from the date when his juniors were promoted with all the companysequential Signature Not Verified benefits.
The first respondent was duly companysidered for promotion in the year 2004 and assessed as Good for that year.
