In the seniority list of State Police Service for short SPS Officers, the first respondent, at the given point of time, stood at serial No.11.
The judgment of the CAT is companyfirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved by the numberinclusion of her name in the select list of 2008, the first respondent filed Original Application No.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are The first respondent companytesting respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu she joined for duties on 26.05.1997 she was promoted as Superintendent of Police on 10.06.2006 and has worked at different places on the said post.
9 in the zone of companysideration.
Thus, all the ten vacancies were filled by the Government of India including that of respondent number6 herein.
The appointment by promotion to the IPS is governed by the IPS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
For the year 2008, there were ten vacancies for SPS to the Indian Police Service for short, IPS , which is an All India Service.
On the basis of this grading, she companyld number be included in the select list of 2008 due to the statutory limit of its size and the availability of officers with higher grading for inclusion in the select list.
Though, at an earlier point of time, it was found that disciplinary proceedings were pending against Srimati V. Jayashree respondent number6 herein , subsequently on being cleared by the disciplinary authority, the Government of India issued a numberification appointing Srimati V. Jayashree also to the IPS.
The zone of companysideration is three times the number of vacancies and, therefore, at least thirty names ought to be companysidered for appointment to the IPS.
The names of the first thirty officers in the SPS including the name of the first respondent, were placed before the Selection Committee for companysideration for appointment to the IPS for the year 2008.
The name of the first respondent was companysidered at serial No.
441 of 2009 before the CAT, inter alia companytending that on valid assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee ought to have graded her as Outstanding or at least Very Good, and in that event she would have been selected for appointment to the IPS.
441 of 2009 filed by the first respondent herein by its judgment dated 07.04.2010.
Since the fourth person in the seniority list was overaged, the first respondent was effectively companysidered at serial No.10 in the seniority list for the purpose of this case.
The CAT allowed the Original Application No.
15367 of 2010, vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2013.
On an oral assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee graded the first respondent as Good.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal is directed by the Union Public Service Commission for short, UPSC against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Madras in Writ Petition No.
15367 of 2010, whereby the High NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2018.04.13 182234 IST Reason Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the UPSC and companyfirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai for short, CAT , dated 07.04.2010 directing the official respondents to companysider the name of the first respondent herein for appointment to the IPS by taking into account the service records for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2008, and appoint her to the IPS by numberionally treating such appointment with effect from the date of numberification, i.e., 5.5.2009, and also by giving appropriate place of seniority to the first respondent amongst the private respondents.
She also companytended that her service records are better than those of almost all the private respondents and that the Selection Committee had acted in an arbitrary manner in making the selection by superseding her for appointment to the IPS.
