SATYA NARAYAN RATHORE vs M/o Personnel,public Grievances And Pensions

1

(Reserved on 18.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Through Video Conferencing)

th
this the 16 day of October , 2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 545 of 2016
Satya Narayan Rathor, S/o Shri G.R. Rathor, aged about 45 years,
Addl. Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur – 492001 (CG).
…….Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Manoj Sharma (absent)
V E R S U S

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, DOP&T, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2.
Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shah Jahan Road, New Delhi - 110069.
3. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantryalaya,
Naya Raipur – 492002 (C.G).
4. Shri Anand Kumar Masih, through Respondent no. 3, State of
Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
– 492002 (C.G).
Advocate for the respondents: None

Page 1 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

2
O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, JM.-
In the present original application, the applicant has prayed
to set aside the DPC proceedings dated 19.12.2014 and notification
dated 10.02.2015 qua the respondent no. 4 (Annexure A-1 and A-2
respectively). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the
respondents to convene review DPC for the vacancy year 2012.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that as per Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955
a Selection Committee meeting was held on 19.12.2013 for
promotion of members of State Civil Services of Chhattisgarh to IAS
for the year 2011 and 2012, wherein Shri Indul Ram Dehari and
Shri Anand Kumar Masih were recommended for promotion to the
IAS (Annexure A-6). Later on, the State Government intimated the
UPSC for deletion of the name of Shri Indul Ram Dehari from the
select list of 2011 and 2012 as he was awarded a sentence by the
Special Judge, Raipur vide order dated 03.07.2013. The State
Government also informed the UPSC that the caste certificate of Shri
Anand Kumar Masih (respondent no. 4) has been cancelled by the
High Power Committee. The applicant has further contended that
the respondent no. 4 has filed a Writ Petition No. 31376/2007 before
Page 2 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

3
Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh wherein vide order dated
15.06.2007 he was held not entitled to any other benefit on the basis
of his caste certificate (Annexure A-7). Thereafter, the Union of India
notified the select list dated 10.02.2015 for the year 2011 and 2012
wherein the name of Shri Indul Ram Dehari was excluded
(Annexure A-2). However, though the name of respondent no. 4 had
been excluded for the year 2011 but he had been included
provisionally in the select list of 2012.
3. The applicant has contended that the inclusion of the
respondent no. 4 in the select list of 2012 is illegal, unjust and
against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No 5854/1994 -Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors . He has stated that since the High Power
Committee has cancelled the caste certificate of Shri Anand Kumar
Masih holding that the same was false, hence, in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (Supra), his
appointment ought to have been cancelled without any further
notice. However, despite the above fact, the Selection Committee, in
the reconvened meeting dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure A-1), has
included the name of the respondent no. 4 in the select list. The
grievance of the applicant is that due to inclusion of respondent no.
Page 3 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

4
4 in the select list of 2012 though he was not eligible in view of
cancellation of his caste certificate as well as the interim order
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in
W.P.31376/2007, he has been deprived of his selection in to IAS.
Therefore, the applicant has contended that the action of the
respondents is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and prayed to allow
the OA.
4. Per contra, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed reply
denying the claim of the applicant. They have stated that the
Selection Committee Meeting for promotion of State Civil Service
Officer to the IAS of Chhattisgarh Cadre for the select list of 2011
and 2012 was held on 19.12.2013. However, the State Government
intimated vide letter dated 28.06.2014 about the sentence awarded
to Shri Indul Ram Dehari. Therefore, Selection Committee Meeting
was reconvened on 19.12.2014 in which Shri Indul Ram Dehari was
assessed as ‘Unfit’ for both the select lists of 2011 and 2012. So far
as the respondent no. 4 is concerned, since a penalty of Censure
was imposed upon him, he was assessed as ‘Unfit’ for the select list
of 2011. As the effect of penalty of Censure was already considered
for the year 2011, it has no effect for the subsequent select list.
Therefore, on overall assessment, the respondent no. 4 was included
Page 4 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

5
in the select list of 2012. However, due to withholding of his integrity
certificate by the State Government, his inclusion in the select list of
2012 was made provisionally. The respondents have further stated
that although the select lists were acted upon by the Government of
India vide notification dated 10.02.2015, the Shri Masih was finally
appointed for want of integrity certificate. The respondents have
further stated that since the applicant was not in the zone of
consideration for the select list of 2011, therefore, his name was not
considered for the said select list. However, his name got included in
the zone of consideration for the select list of 2012 but he could not
be included in the selected due to a limit on the size of select list and
availability of officers senior to him. Thus, the respondents have
stated that the OA is devoid of any merit and prayed to dismiss the
same.
5. When the matter was taken up for final arguments, nobody
had appeared on behalf of both the parties. Since the issue involved
in the present OA relates to the selection and is pending since 2016,
therefore, we deemed it appropriate to reserve the matter. Hence, the
matter was reserved for orders and time was granted to both the
counsel for parties to file their written submissions within 15 days
which they have not complied with.
Page 5 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

6
6. From the pleadings, it is observed that the applicant is
aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the select list of 2012. His
contention is that the name of the respondent no. 4 has wrongly
been included provisionally in the said select as his caste certificate
has been found to be false by the High Power Committee. In view of
the law laid down in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (Supra) he was
not eligible to be included. The applicant has also stated that in view
of the interim order dated 15.06.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P. 31376/2007, the respondent no. 4 is
not entitled to be included in the select list. The interim order dated
15.06.2007 is reproduced below: -
“In the meantime, no effect shall be given to the notice
dated 23.5.2007 pursuant to the direction contained in
para 8.2 of the impugned order dated 5.2.2007
(Annexure P-1), till the next date of hearing. It is made
clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any
other benefit on the basis of his caste certificate .”

7. In view of the above order, now it is to be decided whether the
respondent no. 4 was included in the select list of 2012 ignoring the
cancellation of his caste certificate?
8. From the pleadings of the applicant it does get established
that the respondent no. 4 had been included provisionally by giving
Page 6 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

7
him the benefit of his caste certificate which has been cancelled by
the High Power Committee on being found false. Rather it is noted
from the reply of the respondents that on overall assessment of the
service records of Shri Masih, the Review Selection Committee
assessed him as ‘Very Good’ for the select list of 2011. On basis of
this assessment, his name was recommended by the Review
Selection Committee for inclusion in the select list of 2011. However,
due to withholding of his integrity certificate by the State
Government, the Review Selection Committee recommended for
inclusion of his name in the select list of 2011 and 2012
provisionally subject to the grant of integrity certificate by the State
Government in accordance with the proviso of Regulation 5(5) of the
Promotion Regulations. From para 7.2 of the reply, it is also noted
that the respondent no. 4 has not been given the benefit of his caste
certificate as there is no concept of reservation in promotion of
SC/ST officers in the IAS cadre.
9. We may observe that an officer can be considered by the
Selection Committee only when his name is included in the zone of
consideration for a particular select list. In the present case, it is
noted that the name of the applicant did not figure in the zone of
consideration for the select year 2011. Hence, he was not considered
Page 7 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY

8
for the select list of 2011. However, as his name figured in zone of
consideration for the select list of 2012, he was considered but could
not get included due to lower position in the seniority and a limit on
the size of the select list.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
OA. Accordingly, Original Application No. 545/2016 is dismissed
being devoid of merits.
11. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off
12. There will be no order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…

Page 8 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.22
13:21:16+05'30'
DUBEY