CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH
Order Sheet
Item No: 6
O.A./690/2017
[ INDUCTION INTO IAS ]
Court No.: 2 		No of Adjournment:
Dated: 21/06/2017

VIDYA SAGAR
Vs
D/O PERSONNEL & TRAINING

FOR APPLICANTS(S) Advocate :
Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate.

FOR RESPONDENT(S) Advocate :


DAILY ORDER

  1. Heard Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant who is against the decision taken by the respondents for not forwarding the case of the applicant for induction into IAS against the single vacancy of 2016 (arisen between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016). He contended that as per letter dated 29.03.2017, the State of Haryana decided to fill up the vacancy of Indian Administrative Service (in short 'IAS') concerning recruitment by Selection from Non-SCS to State IAS cadre for Select List of 2016-A and they have asked the concerned quarter to sponsor the name of the eligible officer(s) who fulfill the eligible condition under relevant rule formulation. He submitted that as per notification  Annexure A-1, the applicant meet out all the eligibility conditions as laid down therein. Despite there being,  name of the applicant has not been forwarded to the UPSC for consideration whereas name of other two persons namely Sh. Rameshwar Mehra and Sh. R.B. S Tewatia have been forwarded for consideration. He argued that the applicant has been declared ineligible for consideration for induction into IAS from Non-SCS of the State Officer on the ground that he is not having 8 years of continuous service under State Government on the first day of January of the year in which case is to be considered. He submitted that since the applicant is having 8 years of service as prescribed under rule formulation, therefore, action of the respondents in rejecting his claim for consideration is bad in law.
  2. The applicant has made two prayers in the O.A. Firstly, he has impugned letter dated 29.03.2017 issued by respondent no. 2  to the extent that it lays down in Clause No. 4(iv) the condition of çompletion of not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of January of the year in case is being considered i.e. as on 01.01.2016, therefore, same be declared illegal as same is not in conformity with Regulation 3 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 8 years of continuous service is to be reckoned on the first day of January of the year in which case is being considered when the meeting of Selection Committee  is held which in present case is to be held in the year 2017 and not on 01.01.2016 as notification dated 31.12.1997 (Annexure A-7) issued by Nodal Ministry DoPT provides for completion of 8 years of continuous service on the first day of January of the year in which his case is being considered.
  3. In alternative, he also sought issuance of direction to the respondents to count his deputation period as Excise and Taxation Officers in the Excise and Taxation Department, Chandigarh w.e.f. 14.02.2006 to the date of promotion order dated 31.12.2007 and in this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of K. Mahadevan and another Vs. Union of India and Ors. , 1987 (5) SLR 725 (SC).
  4. Issue notice to the respondents.
  5. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Sr. CGSC, Mr. Sidharath Sanwaria, DAG Haryana and Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate who are having advance notice appear and accept notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 & 3 and respondent no. 4, respectively.
  6. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to file a short reply on or before 03.07.2017 and on the next date of hearing, interim prayer of the applicant will be considered.
  7. List on 03.07.2017.





Sanjeev Kaushik
Member (J)