Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – r.8 – Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by selection) Regulations, 1997 – IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Judicial review of the process governing the selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS – Scope of – The Selection Committee of the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee which placed respondent No.1’s name at Serial No.3 for selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS – Before the State Screening Committee, in the list of 17 recommendations, the appellant was mentioned at Serial No.14, respondent No.9 at Serial No.15 and respondent No.1 at serial No.16 – The State Screening Committee recommended ten names including appellant and respondent No.9, but not respondent No.1 to the UPSC – Two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was appellant – Respondent No.1 approached CAT for quashing appellant’s appointment and for directions to the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC – Tribunal dismissed respondent No.1’s application – Writ petition by respondent No.1 – High Court held that the State Screening Committee failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound to do – High Court also held that respondent No.1’s name was only one recommended to the UPSC previous year, so his name should have figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations – High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No.1’s name to the UPSC – On appeal, held: Tribunal or Court cannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates – In the instant case, it was not for the High Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates and neither it is appropriate for the Supreme Court – However, the Court may look into whether there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process – It was evident from the regulations and guidelines governing the process of selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as letter issued by the GAD, there was no relevance to the serial order in which the names of candidates were recommended – This was wrongly weighed with the High Court – Further, a catena of decisions establish that even the principles of natural justice do not require a duly constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so – There was no mandation for disclosure of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines – Further, there was no hint of arbitrariness, mala fides or bias in the recommendation of the officers including appellant – The decision of the High Court was without jurisdiction and therefore, set aside – Service Law. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It was concluded in M. Sathiya Priya that it was not for the High Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates, and neither is it appropriate for this Court to do the same. All this Court may look into is whether there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. [Para 5.3] [436G]
2. The names of two suitable persons per department were allowed to be submitted. In this scenario, the departmental Selection Committee recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed before the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’s name may be recommended, noting that he had been recommended the previous year, and there was no bar on recommending such a person again if he fulfilled all requisite criteria. Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee, with Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Out of a total of seventeen recommendations received from various departments, the State Screening Committee recommended ten names for consideration to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant. [Para 8] [439-D-F]
3. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argument that placing his name at the bottom of the list of recommendations made by the departmental Selection Committee even after he was recommended by the concerned minister, and subsequently at Serial No. 16 instead of No. 14 before the State Screening Committee, prejudiced the selection process against him. However, as evident from the regulations and guidelines governing the process of selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014 calling for recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no relevance to the serial order in which the names of candidates were recommended by either the Department of Agriculture or the State Screening Committee. The order of placement in the list only acquires relevance at the stage of preparation of the Select List by the UPSC Committee under Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 read with the relevant guidelines. Thus, there is merit in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant and the State Government that the order of placement of the candidates’ names in the lists prepared by the departmental and State committees wrongly weighed with the High Court. [Para 9] [439G-H; 440-A-B]
4. Additionally, as pointed out by the Respondent No. 1, it appears from the records of the meetings of the State Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No. 1’s name while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on the ground that his name had not been recommended by the departmental Selection Committee. However, the 1997 Regulations read with the relevant guidelines indicate that no fault can be found with this approach. Though the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that the departmental minister’s approval was necessary for any recommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this did not confer any power upon him to recommend a name of his own accord. Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’s name being added to the list of two officials already recommended by the departmental committee, more so when only two names had been invited by the GAD, must be held to be irregular and in violation of the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. Moreover, in such a scenario, it cannot be said that there was any malice or bias leading to the non-consideration of Respondent No. 1’s name by the State Screening Committee. [Para 9.1] [440C-E]
5. Moreover, this Court finds itself in disagreement with the conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State Screening Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons. A catena of decisions of this Court has established that even the principles of natural justice do not require a duly constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so. [Para 9.2] [440-F-G]
6. As there is no such requirement mandating the disclosure of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, there is no doubt in our minds that the procedure adopted by the State Screening Committee cannot be faulted. [Para 9.3] [441-E]
7. In any case, the direction issued by the High Court directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely without jurisdiction. Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant documents. It was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee. [Para 11] [442-E-F]
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481 ; Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma (2015) 12 SCC 600 – referred to.
Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya (2018) 15 SCC 796: [2018] 6 SCR 701 ; M.V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13 SCR 624 ; R.S. Dass v. Union of India (1986) Supp SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.