dismissed. Thereafter vide order dated 09.10.2017 the applicant was granted benefit at par with one Shri Dilip Routrai, OAS (S) to the effect against Recruitment Year of being appointed as OAS Class II w.e.f. 18.07.1990, OAS Group A (Senior Branch) w.e.f. 16.06.2011 and OAS (Super time scale) w.e.f. 30.07.2013. The applicant submitted that during the efflux of time, he was promoted to the rank of OAS (SAG) & OAS (Special Secretary) from 06.11.2017 & 18.06.2021 respectively at par with Shri Dilip Routrai.

3. The applicant submitted that Govt. of Odisha had sent names/APARs of

42 SCS officers including his and Shri Dilip Routrai name to UPSC vide letter dated 02.08.2021 & 21.08.2021 (Annexure A/4) for filling up of 14 vacancies of IAS. The applicant submitted that UPSC without calling for any report from the Govt. of Odisha and without due application of mind declared the applicant not eligible on the ground that the has not completed 08 years of continuous service as on 01.01.2021 while declaring Shri Dilip Routrai and other juniors to the applicant as eligible vide letter dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure A/5). The applicant submitted that in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, he was granted benefits at par with Shri Dilip Routrai vide notification dated 09.12.2017 which means benefit granted/enjoyed by Shri Routrai is deemed to have been granted to the applicant. He further submitted that apart from Shri Routray, 34 other juniors have been enlisted for consideration and the stand of respondents (UPSC) that the has not completed eight years of continuous service is violation of provision under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicant submitted that he

3

had filed an exhaustive representation dated 14.09.2021 & 08.10.2021 (Annexure A6 & A/7) to Respondent No. 3 who instead of forwarding it to Respondent No. 2 forwarded it to Respondent No. 5 which was disposed of without any conversation with the UPSC placing before them any relevant letters and was disposed of vide letter dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A/8) reiterating the stand taken by UPSC in letter under Annexure A/5. Hence this

OA.

4. Respondent No. 3 & 5 in their counter inter alia averred that third proviso to regulation 5 (2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 states that the committee shall not consider the case of the member of State Civil Service unless, on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, he has completed eight years of continuous services (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. The respondents submitted that since the applicant was appointed to SCS cadre retrospectively w.e.f. 18.07.1990, but he actually joined the SCS cadre only on 25.10.2017. Thus, the applicant had not completed eight years of continuous service in the SCS cadre as on 01.01.2020 to be considered for select list year 2020. Hence they have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

5. Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 (UPSC) in their reply statement have inter alia averred that as per Regulation 5 (1) of the promotion regulation, the number of vacancies against which selection is made for a particular select list is determined by Govt of India in consultation with the State Govt. Thereafter

4

State Govt forwards the proposal to the Commission (UPSC) and after resolving the deficiencies in the proposal, the selection committee prepares the select list as per the provisions of Regulation 5 (2) of the promotion regulations. It is submitted that after preparation of the select list by the committee, as per Regulation 6 and 6 A of the promotion regulations, the State Govt and Central Govt are required to furnish their observations on the recommendations and after taking into consideration the observation, the Commission takes a final decision on the recommendation of the selection committee with or without modification in terms of the provisions of Regulation 7. The respondents submitted that in the list sent by Govt. of Odisha vide their letter dated 02.08.2021 the name of the applicant was included as per court direction and the state govt intimated that he has been appointed in the State Civil Service cadre w.e.f. 18.07.1990 but has actually joined the State Civil Service cadre w.e.f. 25.10.2017. Since the applicant had not completed requisite eight year of continuous service as on 01.01.2020 as required under third Proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of the Promotion Regulation, revised eligigbility list was called vide letter dated 03.09.2021. In response to the said letter, State Govt furnished a revised eligibility list excluding the name of the applicant vide letter dated 15.09.2021. The respondents further submitted that the promotion of State Civil Service Officers to the IAS into IAS is entirely different set of service governed by its own entry conditions, one of them being mandatory functioning of minimum eight years of substantive/officiating continous service as Deputy Collector or equivalent. Hence they have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

5

6. Learned counsel for the applicant relief on the following citations including the following:

a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vrs K. V. Jankiraman (1991)

AIR 2010.

b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vrs E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai Civil Appeal No. 7953/2004.

c) Hon'ble Andhra High Court in Dr. T. K. Srinivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

d) CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 1359/2017 Ram Gopal vs UT Police Chandigarh.

e) Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 3381/2015 (Valsala Kumari Devi vs State of Kerala)

f) Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in WP No. 1749/2017 Smr. Hema Pant vs State of Uttarakhand

g) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 7423/2013 Rakesh Beniwal vrs Govt of NCT of Delhi.

h) Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP C 21923/2013 (Narayan Chandra Mall vs State of Odisha)

i) Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Hanumantha Reddy vs Union of India 1996(3) SLR 234.

j) CAT, Hyderabad Bench in Sri Ramanjaneyulu vs UPSC in OA No. 1826/2000 batch cases.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following citations including the following:

a) Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Hanumantha Reddy vs Union of India 1996(3) SLR 234.

6

8. After giving thoughtful to the various arguments advances by the parties we have perused the pleadings and documents/rules/judgment relied on by respective parties. The issue in the instant case was exactly the issue before the Hyderabd Bench in the case of Sri Sri Ramanjaneyulu vs UPSC in OA No. 1826/2000 batch cases. Viz where there is a qualifying service for promotion the notional date of appointment or notional date of promotion was to be taken into consideration and after due discussions and deliberations the Hyderabdn Bench of the Tribunal had held that that there can be no good reasons for taking into consideration the actual date of promotion in the feeder cadre for the purpose of making state service employee to be eligible for consideration for selection to IAS.

9. The relevant portion of the judgment of CAT, Hyderbad Bench in Sri Ramanjaneyulu (supra) is extracted below:

"18. The judgement of the Supreme Court in K.B.Rajoria's case (supra) also lends support to the view that regular service does not mean actual service only and the eligibility could be determined with reference to the notional promotion granted from a retrospective date. In that case, one officer was wrongly superseded in 1995 for promotion as Additional Director General. The wrong was set-right by the order dated 10.6.98 by granting him promotion retrospectively with effect from 22.2.95. In January 1999, he was considered for further promotion as Director General. The Recruitment Rules provide "two years regular service" as eligibility condition for promotion as Director General. The Officer did not fulfil the condition of two years if his date of actual promotion was reckoned i.e, 10.6.98, but fulfilled this condition if the period was reckoned from the date of notional promotion i.e, 22.2.95. The Supreme Court held that the regular service' in the grade did not mean actual physical service and that notional promotion could not be considered as irregular. By giving the officer notional promotion with effect from 22.2.95 the officer in fact was regularly appointed to that post, on that date. The Court also referred to the decision in M.Bhaskar's case (supra) and clarified that the eligibility criteria in that case was two years experience. and on

7

that point, the case was distinguished. In the above cases viz., Sitaram Raghunath Kapse and K.B.Rajoria (supra), the learned judges have stressed the point that where a mintake initially committed having been set-right and justice was done to the officern, it would amount to perpetuating the mistake committed/injustice done. If the corrected dates were not given effect for promotion.

19. In "S.Krishna Murthy Va. General Manager. Southern Railway: AIR 1977 sc 1868", the appellant was not considered for absorption as Traffic Inspector along with other similarly situated employees and the Hallway Administration discovering the injustice. set-right the error subsequently. But by that time, others have been promoted as Traffic Inspectors and the appellant was not. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that.

"The appellant has a future and hopefully looks forward for promotion. It is, in our view, right and reasonable that for purposes of promotion, seniority will be reckoned from 20th December, 1967 but for qualifying period, if there is such a condition for promotion, his notional service from 1st January, 1959 will be considered."

Thus, we find that in all the above cases where there is a qualifying service for promotion, the notional date of appointment or the notional date of promotion was taken into consideration and the courts in all the cases uniformly held that failure of the same would only perpetuate the injustice initially committed. No other judgements have been cited by the respondents in support of their contention.

20. In fact the actual dates of appointment of the applicants herein, as Deputy Collectors were invalid and unlawful. The correct dates of their appointment of promotion have been finally assigned by the Government and hence for all purposes, thereafter those dates have to be taken into consideration. There can be no good reason for taking into consideration the actual dates of their appointment for promotion to IAS. If that were to be done. we would be only undoing the right done to them by the Government. It should also be remembered that the respondents are not disputing the deemed date of appointment.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that all the applicants are eligible for inclusion in the select list of the site Civil Service Officers for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to be considered by the Select Committee which met en 15.12.2000 and 16.12.2000 on they had completed 8 years of continuous service in the cadre of Deputy Collectors in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the

8

Promotion Regulations. As it is now stated that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court, all the applicants have been considered and their results have been withheld, the respondents are directed to declare the results within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

22. The OAs are accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, we do not order costs."

10. It is not the case of the respondents that decision of the Hyderabad Bench has been reviewed or set aside by Tribunal or in any higher forum. We do not find any ground/new ground to differ/disagree with the view taken by the Hyderabd bench of the Tribunal. The doctrine of precedence has been well enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal & Others v Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi [JT 1999 (9) SC 597] where H'n'ble Supreme Court had held:

"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all

9

concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:

"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas `s case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.

"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."

We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship."

11. In view of the foregoing discussion made above, we are of the view that rejection of candidature of the applicant as he does not complete eight years of

10

continuous service in terms of 3^rdproviso to Regulation 5 (2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 does not hold good. Hence the impugned order is quashed. The respondents/UPSC are directed to convene the review DPC and consider the case of the applicant as against the select year 2020 strictly in terms of rules and law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12. The OA is accordingly allowed to the extent above. No costs.

(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY)

MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)

11