Service Law – Appointment by promotion – Respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State – The names of the officers which were to be considered for appointment to the IPS included the name of respondent – On an oral assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee did not include her in the select list of 2008 – Aggrieved, respondent filed application before CAT, which was allowed – Judgment of CAT was confirmed by the High Court – Appellant-UPSC contended that both CAT and High Court erred in taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 – On appeal, held: The IPS regulations and the guidelines framed therein by the Central Government are to be applied jointly at the time of making the selection list – Selection Committee was to consider the performance of the officer i.e., the service records including the last five years, preceding the year for which the selection list is to be prepared as per the guidelines – As crucial date for determining the eligibility of the officers is 1 st January of the particular year for which selections are made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31 st March of the year preceding the year of selection list are to be taken into account as per the Guidelines – In instant case, the selection list was to be prepared for the year 2008 – Crucial date for reckoning the eligibility of the officers in the matter on hand was 1 st January, 2008 – Accordingly, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March, 2007 i.e., the year preceding the year of the selection list, were to be taken into account – Accordingly, only the Annual Confidential Reports of five years upto the year ending 31st March, 2007 are relevant i.e. Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 needed to be taken into account at the time of selection – The same was being rightly done by the Selection Committee in the matter on hand – Both CAT and High Court misdirected themselves and considered Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 – Further, the Selection Committee constituted by the UPSC is manned by experts in the field, one have to trust their assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala fides or arbitrariness – In the instant case, neither the decision nor the decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to arbitrariness – The selection was made rationally – IPS(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – regn. 5.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The error that crept into the findings of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, was on account of the basic fact that they erred in not properly appreciating the span/scope of selection by a Selection Committee. For the purpose of consideration of a candidate for selection to the IPS in respect of the select list of 2008, the Annual Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008 could not have been taken into account by the Selection Committee. As per para 3.1 of the Guidelines, the assessment of the eligible officers is with special reference to the performance of the officer during the last five years, preceding the year for which the select list is prepared. As the crucial date for determining the eligibility of the officers is taken 1st January of a particular year for which the selections are being made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March of the year preceding the year of selection list are to be taken into account as per para 3.2 of the Guidelines. In the matter on hand, the selection list was to be prepared for the year 2008. Thus, the crucial date for reckoning the eligibility of the officers in the matter on hand is 1st January, 2008. Accordingly, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March, 2007 i.e., the year preceding the year of the selection list, are to be taken into account. The Selection Committee will consider the performance of the officer i.e., the service records including the last five years, preceding the year for which the selection list is to be prepared as per para 3.1 of the Guidelines. Accordingly, only the Annual Confidential Reports of five years upto the year ending 31 st March, 2007 are relevant i.e. Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 needed to be taken into account at the time of selection. The same was being done by the Selection Committee in the matter on hand. Hence, no fault can be found. It seems that the CAT, as well as the High Court, has misdirected in coming to the wrong conclusion that Annual Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008 ought to have been taken into consideration inasmuch as such conclusion is against the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 & the Guidelines framed therein by the Central Government. [Para 12] [719-C-H]
2. The CAT and the High Court have mainly relied on the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers at the State level while coming to their conclusion. But, in terms of the Regulations and the Guidelines framed therein, for categorising the officers, the Selection Committee was required to consider the overall relative assessment of the service records of each of the eligible officers. The Selection Committee is not guided merely by the grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports but makes its own assessment on the basis of the quality of the officer as indicated in various columns recorded by the Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authority thereunder. In other words, the Selection Committee is not required to compulsorily accept the gradings given in the Annual Confidential Reports as it would amount to merely acting as a post office and the whole process would be nothing but a farce. The grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of a particular year may differ from the grading arrived at by the Selection Committee in respect of the said Annual Confidential Report depending on all relevant material. [Para 13] [720-A-D]
3. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of the UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter. When a High Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to the CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the Courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the Court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body, i.e., the Selection Committee. The Courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters. [Para 15] [720-G, H; 721-A-C]
4. This Court has repeatedly observed and concluded that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority or an umpire to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like a Court of Appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only, and the courts rarely sits as a Court of Appeal to examine the selection of a candidate; nor is it the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. Since the Selection Committee constituted by the UPSC is manned by experts in the field, one have to trust their assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala fides or arbitrariness. [Para 16] [722-F, G]
5. In the matter on hand, neither the decision nor the decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to arbitrariness. The selection has been made rationally. The applicant-respondent no.1 was duly considered by the Selection Committee. However, on an overall assessment of her service records, her name was not included in the select list due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with higher grading were available for inclusion in the select list as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations. [Para 19] [724-C-D]
R.S. Dass v. Union of India and Others (1986) Suppl. SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 ; UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Others (2005) 10 SCC 15 ; Union of India v. A.K. Narula (2007) 11 SCC 10 : [2007] 7 SCR 262 ; M. V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13 SCR
624 – referred to.
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.