Union Public Service Commission vs Jawahar Santhkumar and Others

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 All India Services Act, 1951 has been enacted for the purpose of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons belonging to the Indian Administrative Services. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government has framed the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Promotion Regulations). In accordance with the provisions of the said Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee, presided over by the Chairman/Member of the UPSC makes selection of the State Civil Service Officers for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. In Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a particular recruitment year for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service of the State Cadre is determined by the Government of India (DoPT) in consultation with the State Government concerned. Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to the Commission along with seniority list, eligibility list (three times the number of vacancies) of the State Service Officers, integrity certificates, details regarding disciplinary proceedings and details of penalties imposed on the eligible officers etc. and complete ACR dossiers of the eligible officers. When the Selection Committee meet for selection for the recruitment year, the above documents are placed before the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations. The Committee duly classifies the eligible State Civil Service Officers included in the zone of consideration as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” or “Unfit”, as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records. Thereafter, as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required number of names firstly from the officers finally classified as “Outstanding”, then from amongst those similarly classified as “Very Good” and thereafter, from amongst those officers classified as “Good”. While assessing the suitability of the officers for promotion, the Selection Committee, as per the uniform and consistent practice followed in the matter of induction to the All India Services, examines the service records of each of the eligible officers, with special reference to the performance of the officers during the last five years (preceding the year for which the Select List is being prepared), deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in the various columns recorded by the reporting/reviewing/accepting authority in the ACRs for different years and then after detailed mutual deliberation and discussion, finally arrives at a classification to be assigned to each officer. While doing so, the Selection Committee determines the overall grading recorded in the Confidential Reports (CRs) to ensure that the overall grading in the CRs is not inconsistent with the grading/remarks under various specific parameters or attributes. The Selection Committee takes into account orders regarding appreciation for the meritorious works done by the officers concerned and also keeps in view the orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks duly communicated to the officer, which, even after due consideration of his representation are not expunged. The UPSC after taking into consideration the records received from the State Government under Regulation 6 and the observation of the Central Government received under Regulation 6A of the Promotion Regulations, takes a final decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Promotion Regulations. The selection of the State Civil Service Officers for promotion to IAS is made in a fair and objective manner on the basis of relevant records and following the relevant Rules and Regulations. The above procedure is uniformly followed for all the States/Cadres in the matter of induction to All India Services. [Paras 11-13] [637-D-H; 638-AB-E-H; 639-A-B]

1.2 Insofar as the present case, the first respondent’s name was included by the State Government in the list of officers eligible for consideration for the year 2004. Accordingly, the Selection Committee also considered the ACRs and made a relative assessment to all the officers under consideration. The name of the first respondent could not be included in the Select List of the year 2004 as the overall grading given to him by the Selection Committee was lower and there were only three vacancies. Since the name of the first respondent could not be included in the Select List for promotion to the IAS Cadre in the year 2004, the first respondent was not considered for promotion. Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is strictly on the basis of merit, ability and suitability of the officers. The first respondent was ordered to be promoted to the cadre of DRO by the order of the State Tribunal dated 26.06.2002. But the first respondent’s seniority was refixed on 05.09.2005 vide G.O.Ms. No.924. Of course, the first respondent’s seniority was refixed by the State Government subsequent to the Selection Committee Meeting for 2004. [Paras 14, 17 and 18] [639-C-D; 640-A; 641-C-D]

M.V. Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13 SCR 624 – relied on.

1.3 No merit in the contention of the first respondent that his seniority would have enabled his name to be included in the Select List. Gradation is made by the Selection Committee on the merits based on the relative assessment. Seniority would become relevant only when the merit of the candidates is equal. Power to classify the candidates is the function of the Selection Committee. In the process of selection under Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee is not required to record reasons by assigning overall relative assessment in respect of the eligible officers or for selecting a junior officer, having higher merit, in preference to that of a senior officer. [Paras 20, 22] [641-H; 642-A-B; 643-E-F]

R.S. Dass v. Union of India and Others (1986) Supp. SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 – relied on.

UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Others (2005) 10 SCC 15 – held applicable.

1.4 When the Selection Committee has given its own classification, the court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Committee of experts. In the present case, neither the decision of the Selection Committee nor the decision-making process suffers from any arbitrariness. Since there was downgrading of the first respondent for the assessment year 2004, the first respondent was not included in the Select List. On overall assessment of service records, the name of the first respondent was not included in the Select List due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with higher grading in the Select List were available as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations. The High Court was not right in holding that the Selection Committee has miserably failed to assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and that the promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004 is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of 2007 is set aside. Insofar as the challenge by the first respondent to G.O. Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the views expressed in this judgment. [Paras 24-26] [645-A-GH; 646-A-C] Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796 : [2018] 6 SCR 701 – relied on.