The Tribunal also held that once the appellant was companysidered for empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of India, as he had become eligible for such companysideration, there was numberpoint in directing the respondent authorities to companysider his case for empanellment for the post of Additional Secretary to the government of India.
He held different postings and was promoted to the Super Time Scale in the year 1982.
On 29.7.1999, the Tribunal made a further direction that the appellants representation dated 1.5.1999 should be decided before finalising the empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of India.
In December 1977 the appellants case was reviewed along with those of several other officers of the 1967 batch of IAS officer.
However, he got numberrelief therefrom.
The challenge made by the appellant to the companystitution and validity of the Central Staffing Scheme was declined by the Tribunal.
It was also held that the ACRs were number the only companysideration for empanellment.
He also sought a direction from the Tribunal to the authorities for streamlining the system of recording annual companyfidential reports ACRs and to make the procedure for empanelment objective, fair and transparent.
On 28.4.2000, the Tribunal Dismissed the OA holding that the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or Secretary to the Government of India was number a promotional post for an all India Services officer of State cadre, and therefore, most of the companytentions urged, which proceeded on the footing that the empanellment to the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or the Secretary to the Government of India was a promotional post, were irrelevant.
Again on 7.3.2000, the appellant sent another memorial to the President against his exclusion from the panel of the post of Secretary to the Government of India while two other officers junior to him, and allegedly of lesser merit, had been empanelled.
These amendments were allowed on 23.3.1999.
The appellant also submitted a memorial to the President for review of his case for empanelment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India but got numberrelief.
On 12.5.1999, the Tribunal made a further interim order directed to authorities to companyplete the appellants character roll CR and to take a decision on his representations dated 31.8.1998 and 6.3.1999 before companysidering him for empanellment to the post of Secretary to the Government of India.
The Tribunal took the view that the posts of Additional Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India were very high and responsible posts for which only officers with outstanding entries in ACRs and excellent recommendations should be companysidered.
On 31.8.1999, the Government of India ifnormed the appellant that his CR had been companypleted and the ACR for 1993 94, about which he had some grievance, had been cancelled.
There is an appeal by the appellant in respect of the relief denied to him and there is an appeal by the Union of India in respect of that part of the relief granted to the appellant by the High Court.
The tribunal made an interim order on 24.2.1998 directing that further empanelment and postings of 1967 and 1968 batch IAS officers junior to the appellant shall be subject to the decision of the OA.
Hence, they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
2082/2003 hereinafter referred to as the appellant .
The appellant then companytended that some officer were biased against him and their assessment was vitiated by mala fides.
His representations were number placed before the Special Committee of Secretaries SCoS and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet ACC .
The Government of India, however, declined to deal with and take action on his representations on the ground that the matter was sub judice before the Tribunal.
The Facts The appellant was selected as an officer of the Indian Administrative Service IAS and was allotted UP cadre in the year 1967.
On 11.1.2000, the appellant made a statutory memorial to the President alleging that he had been wrongly excluded from the panel for the post of Secretary to the Government of India.
The appellant carried a writ petition to the High Court and the Division Bench granted him partial relief.
In September 1999, the SCoS met for empanellment for the post of Secretary to the Government of India and after companysidering his record the appellant was number included in the panel.
On 15.09.1998, the appellant sought an amendment for amending the relief clause in his OA and prayed for a direction to reconsider his case for empanellment as Additional Secretary to the Government of India and also to companysider him for empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India.
On 1.5.1999, he sent another representation to the Cabinet Secretary to decide his earlier memorial addressed to the President and to give him justice by empanellment as Secretary to the Government of India.
In September 1996, the appellant was companysidered for empanelment as additional Secretary to the Government of India, but was number empanelled.
38/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, on 28.1.1998.
He alleged that the failure of the authorities to include him in the panel for Additional Secretaries to the Government of India was illegal on several grounds including mala fides on the part of some of the reporting officers.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the SCoS had taken into companysideration the change made in the ACR companysequent to the direction of the Tribunal and it had companysidered the empanellment of the appellant for the post of Secretary to the Government of India after the representation dated 1.5.1999 had been decided.
The appellant filed Original Application OA NO.
Several representations were made by him to the authorities against his exclusion from the panel of Additional Secretaries to the Government of India on the ground that his case had been companysidered on the basis of wrong appreciation of the character rolls and ACRs, which had number been recorded in accordance with the All India Service Confidential Rolls Rules, 1970.
Sometime in February 2000, the ACC met and accorded approval to the recommendations made by the SCoS for the panel of 1967 batch for the post of secretary to the Government of India.
He was number, however, empanelled.
These appeals arise out of an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , which was moved by Satya Narain Shukla, appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunal declined any relief to the appellant and dismissed his original application.
SRIKRISHNA, J. These two appeals impugned the same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and are in the nature of cross appeals.
