Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

R. TAMILMANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Decided
26 February 1992
Judges listed
M.H. KANIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 1072 · 1992 INSC 58

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KANIA, CJ. This appeal arises out of an order of a Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein. The prayer in the application was to consider and appoint the appellant to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IAS') for the year 1990. It appears that for the year 1990 the appellant was one of the five candidates called for interview for selection to the I.AS. from among the Non-State Civil Service Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu. It seems to be common ground that under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956, read with similar Regulations, namely, Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulations, 1955 persons not belonging to the State Civil Service, who are of outstanding merit and ability and who have completed not less than eight years of service, can be considered for appointment to the I.AS. by selection. In the case of the appellant the Seletion Committee interviewed the appellant along with four other candidates recommending their names to the Union Public Service Commission for approval. In this rating process three of the members of the Select Committee rated the appellant as "outstanding" whereas the other two members rated him as "very good'.'. By curious process of logic, which we find a little difficult to understand, the Selection Committee declined to recommend his name for consideration on the ground that there was no 'consensus' regarding his ability.

p. 1073, margin C

In our view it is clear that if out of five committee members three ranked the appellant as "outstanding" and two as 'very good', the result would be that there was definitely consensus that he was at least "very good" and in fact a little better. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no reason why his case could not have been put up for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission.· The Central Administrative Tribunal, with respect, was in error in dismissing the application of the appellant as it did. We direct the case of the appellant to be put up for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in the vacancy of 1990 on the footing of the consensus as we have set out earlier.

pp. 1073–1074, margin G

The appeal is allowed as aforestated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 1074, margin B