CHENNAI: A select list of IPS officers for the year 1994-95, based on which Deputy Inspector-General of Police P. Sivanandi gained seniority over five other directly-recruited IPS officers, has been quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Passing orders on the original applications filed by the five officers, the Madras Bench of the CAT, comprising Vice-Chairman Justice P. Shanmugam and Administrative Member V. Lakshmiratan said: "We are of the view that it will be appropriate to quash the select list of 1994-95 as finalised in 1999, as a result of which (the late) S. Avudayappan and P. Sivanandi moved from 1995-96 to 1994-95 select list and, in consequence, gained higher seniority over the applicants."

Describing as "impermissible" the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) decision to improve the grading of Mr. Sivanandi on the basis of "additional Annual Confidential Reports" (ACRs), the Bench further directed the Union Home Ministry, the UPSC and the Home Department to "redo the select list for the year 1994-95." It was also clarified that the ACRs written after the relevant cut-off date of March 31, 1994 should not be considered.

Review meeting

The matter relates to the appointment and promotion of Mr. Sivanandi and the late Avudayappan as IPS officers from the 1995-96 select list, and the revision of their seniority from the 1994-95 list after a review meeting of the UPSC.

Challenging their promotion and seniority, I. Subramanian, senior counsel for the direct IPS officials, said the erstwhile juniors had become seniors now.

Concurring with his submissions, the Bench wondered as to how the UPSC placed reliance on the "additional ACRs" when the "impermissible" documents had "the effect of changing the overall grading of Mr. Sivanandi."

It faulted the UPSC for having taken into account the ACRs written over 14 months after the relevant date, and said it was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government. "The facts go to prove clearly that the ACR had been written de hors the instructions and reviewed without reference to the instructions of the Government after a long period of unexplained delay."

It also took note of the fact that while the UPSC talked about the "additional ACRs," the State Government had clearly told the Tribunal that no such "additional ACRs" of Mr. Sivanandi and Avudayappan were placed before the UPSC's review committee for consideration.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail