Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 800 (PAT)

Amrendra Kumar Dwividi v. Union Of India

2002-07-25

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. Two petitions have been filed by the erstwhile officers of the Bihar State Services claiming, in effect, for declaration to the Indian Administrative Service cadre. Four petitions have been filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to carry out an exercise to consider the cases of some of the officers, all after retirement to the I.A.S. Cadre. Whether the petitioners, as officers, seeking declaration to the I.A.S. cadre or the Union of India resisting the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to consider the cases of some of the officers, the exercise has been gone into and under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 2. However, it is not for the first time that this matter was being examined by the High Court and if there was any illegality or reiief denied either by the State Government, the Union of India or for that matter non-consideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the court would have considered going into the merits of the matter. 3. But upon hearing submissions on the petitions by the respective counsel of the parties and going through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24th April, 2000 arising out of several claim petitions, the court considers it appropriate not to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whether on the two petitions filed by the officers of the Bihar State Services and four petitions by the Union of India. 4. First the details of the cases need to be set on record so that sight may not be lost on the number of cases as were registered before the Tribunal. These were : (i) O.A. 142 of 2000 (Prem Kant Jha vs. Union of India & Ors.) (ii) O.A. 253 of 2000 (Dalit Paswan vs. Union of India & Ors.) (iii) O.A. 593 of 2000 (Rameshwar Mehra Vyathit vs. Union of India & Ors.) (iv) O.A. 538 of 2000 (Shambhu Nath Das & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (v) O.A. 311 of 2000 (Amarendra Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (vi) O.A. 317 of 2000 (Nawneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (vii) R.A. 34 of 2000/in O.A. 380 of 2000 (Mahavir Prasad Ajmera & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) 5. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (v) O.A. 311 of 2000 (Amarendra Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (vi) O.A. 317 of 2000 (Nawneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (vii) R.A. 34 of 2000/in O.A. 380 of 2000 (Mahavir Prasad Ajmera & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) 5. The submission on behalf of the officers apparently is that during past years, whatsoever be the reason, select lists were not made though it should have been from time to time during the relevant years when changes occurred. Publication of these lists subsequently, apparently became the cause of dispute between the officers seeking placement into the I.A.S. cadre and this brought further complications on the availability of more claimants amongst several officers when many years were put together. The earlier proceedings before the High Court arose out of the Tribunals orders as the officers continued their claims. Subsequently, proceeding were before the Supreme Court. The references to these are sufficiently provided in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the order of the Tribunal. 6. During the pendency of the procceeding before the Tribunal, the Government of India came out with a notification no. F. 14015/20/97AIS (I) (ii) dated 20th October, 2000. This was an exercise which was carried out by several decisions of the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Thus, upon a Selection Committee having been constituted matters having been examined, considered orders were made by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 7. Persons, who were affected were intimated of the exercise carried out by the Government of India and these were Sarvashri Navneet Sharma, Amarendra Kumar Dwivedi, Manohar Ram, Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Maha Prasad Jha, Prem Chandra Kesharwani and Harihar Chaudhary. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna also received an order of the Government of India dated 20th October, 2000. 8. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 20th October, 2000 was a much considered and deliberated exercise. After the order has seen litigation at three tiers before the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court, this Court is firmly of the opinion that it should not unsettle settled matters. 9. The High Court, thus, declines to interfere in either of the writ petitions, two by erstwhile officers and four by the Union of India. After the order has seen litigation at three tiers before the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court, this Court is firmly of the opinion that it should not unsettle settled matters. 9. The High Court, thus, declines to interfere in either of the writ petitions, two by erstwhile officers and four by the Union of India. 10. These petitions are dismissed.