This was challenged by the applicants before the Tribunal by pointing out that the State had wrongly calculated the number of vacancies as 7 by Counting the period of 12 months under Regulation 5 1 , from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1989 instead of from 16th March 1989 to 15th March.
Accordingly, the Committee met again on March 16, 1989 to companyplete the select list as directed.
The first respondent and five others who were members of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Service had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal for brevity with a grievance that the selection of officers to the Indian Administrative Service IAS on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee in its meet ing held on December 19, 1988 and on March 16, 1989 was illegal.
1955 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
From the Judgment and Order dated9.11.1990 of the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.
S. Banthia, Piyush Mathur, G. Prakash, T.C. Sharma, K. Agnihotri and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents.
3383 of 199 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Commission directed the Committee to meet again and grade the remaining 12 officers also.
Altar Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellant.
In its meeting on December 19, 1988, the Selection Committee had estimated 7 vacancies in the IAS cadre and was, therefore, required to prepare a select list of 14 members of the State Civil Service for promotion to the IAS, under Regulation 5 1 of the Regulations.
While preparing the list, the companymittee had to companysider for inclusion in the said list the cases of members of the State Civil Service in the order of there seniority equal to three times the number of officers to be placed on the list.
Hence the Committee had to companysider the cases of 42 members of the Service.
The Committee, however, companysidered the cases only of 30 officers, graded them and submitted its recommendation to the Union Public Service Commission.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. What falls for companysideration in this appeal is the interpretation of clauses 1 , 2 and , 3 of Regu lation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations,.
As a result of this selection, appointment orders of 14 officers who were included in the select list were issued on 29th/30th March 1989.
129 of 1989.
