WP/28486/2009 of J.Murali Vs The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, on 31 December 2009

Conclusion

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

W.P.NO.28486 OF 2009

31-12-2009

BETWEEN;

J.Murali son of J.Radhakrishnamurty

vs.

...Petitioner

The Government of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi and threeotherws

...Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

W.P.NO.28486 OF 2009

ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)

Heard Sri E.Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel representing SM.Ravinder Nath Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and thlearned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.1 and 2 and thlearned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.3.

The writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 15-122009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench iO.A.No.1033 of 2009 declining to grant stay of selections to the IndiaAdministrative Service (IAS) from amongst the officers of the relevanfeeder category in the State services, under the All India Service(Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. The petitioner haassailed in the O.A the validity of the Regulation 5(4) and 5(5) of thRegulations and the guidelines framed for internal guidance by the 2[n]respondent, in the context of certain observations recorded by thSupreme Court on these Regulations and guidelines in UPSC VsK.Rajaiah and Others ([[1]]).

The Central Administrative Tribunal in declining to interdict thprocess of selections observed that any selections made pursuant to thselection committee meeting held on 09-11-2009 would be subject to thresult of the O.A and has also recorded that as the applicant is junior to athose who have been selected even according to the applicant, no case imade out for passing an interdictory order. While the petitioner claims preferential right vis-à-vis the others who appeared at the selectionswhether that expectation would eventually result in a Judgment his favouin the O.A will have to be await adjudication of the validity of thRegulations and the guidelines impugned in the O.A. Concerns of publiinterest warrant that the process of selection should not be interdicted, as public office particularly in an All India Service ought not to be left unfilledto subserve the interest of an individual litigator.

On the aforesaid analysis, we discern no infirmity in the interim order of the CAT impugned in this writ petition. There are no merits.Thwrit petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

______________

GODA RAGHURAM,J

__________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

31[st] DECEMBER 2009.TSNR