15791 15795 of 2006 in the Madras High Court challenging the companymon order of the Tribunal vitiating his selection by excluding from companysideration the ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993.
One of the submissions made by the Union Public Service Commission for short UPSC to justify the selection by the Review Select Commission before the High Court was that the ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 companyld validly have been companysidered by the Review Select Committee.
The judgment and order to the companytrary passed by the Madras High Court on 27th October, 2006 in W.P. Nos.
The Annual Confidential Reports ACRs required to be companysidered for his promotion related to the period from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1994.
1299 1305 of 1999 etc.
Unfortunately, the High Court did number accept Sivanandis companytention or that of the UPSC and upheld the view expressed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal then directed a fresh selection process.
On a challenge having been raised to the selection to the Indian Police Service by some aggrieved officers, an original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal , which set aside the selection for 1994 95.
A Select Committee companystituted under the Indian Police Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1955 companysidered Sivanandi, amongst others, for promotion in 1994 95 to the Indian Police Service.
595 598 of 2005 and O.A. No.
By a companymon order dated 5th May, 2006 the Tribunal allowed the original applications filed by the private respondents on the finding that the ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 was invalid and companyld number have been companysidered by the Review Select Committee since it was written beyond the period prescribed by the State Government and therefore Sivanandis selection was vitiated.
The Select Committee graded Sivanandi as Good when it met on 7th March, 1995.
Alternatively, it was submitted that even if it were excluded from companysideration, it would make numberdifference to the overall grading of Sivanandi and that it was the earlier missing ACR of 1992 93 that resulted in Sivanandi being graded Very Good as against the earlier grading of Good.
Feeling aggrieved by Sivanandis selection, the private respondents before us approached the Tribunal through a batch of applications being A. No.
Feeling aggrieved by the limited adverse finding against him by the Tribunal, Sivanandi preferred W.P. Nos.
The opinion expressed by the Tribunal was accepted by this Court by an order dated 20th February, 2002 in Civil Appeal Nos.
As such, the promotion of Sivanandi to the IPS was fully justified in law and also on merit, even after excluding the ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993.
780 of 2005.
Significantly, the Tribunal held in Sivanandis favour that the earlier missing ACR for 1992 93 which was number made available was rightly companysidered by the Review Select Committee.
Suffice it to say that the appellant Sivanandi was directly recruited on or about 6th May, 1985 as a Deputy Superintendent of Police with the Tamil Nadu Police.
