Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Satyendra Jeet Singh, Addl. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 7 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)SLJ54(CAT)
ORDER
O.P. Garg, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The core question involved in the present Original Application for consideration and determination is whether the Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) is obliged to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) on the request of the Government of India which has found some merits in the representation made by an Officer who could not reach the bench mark and, therefore, found ineligible for consideration to a promotional post by the earlier DPC. This controversy has come to be raised in the back-drop of the following facts.
2. As a result of Combined Civil Service Examinations of the year 1980, the applicant Shri Satyendra Jeet Singh was selected and appointed as Assistant Collector in the Customs and Central Excise Group 'A' Service, and was given the label of 1981 batch. The conditions of service of the applicant are governed by the Central Excise Service Group 'A' Rules. 1987. On account of various long drawn rounds of litigation right upto the Apex Court with regard to inter-se seniority of the officers of the Service, ad hoc promotions at the various levels on the higher posts came to be made. In course of time, the applicant came to be promoted as adhoc Joint Commissioner and presently he is working as Additional Commissioner on adhoc basis. In the month of March, 2002, a DPC was convened for making regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner.
3. By virtue of the notification dated 3.5.2002, a number of officers working on ad-hoc basis were promoted on regular basis as Joint Commissioner. The name of the applicant did not find a place in the said, notification, though his immediate junior, Shri Mohinder Singh, had been granted regular promotion. The reason which the applicant could gather for non-inclusion of his name in the notification dated 3.5.2002 was that he was categorised 'as fit' as he failed to achieve the bench mark 'Very Good' as determined by the DPC in view of the various. Government orders. The applicant made a detailed representation dated 21.5.2002 (Annexure A-7) and has clarified various facts in the absence of which he failed to make the bench mark. According to the applicant, he was erroneously excluded from the zone of consideration as having not reached the bench mark on the basis of certain mis-conception and mis-reading of his Annual Confidential Reports. According to the applicant, he was to be graded as 'Very Good' in view of the following details culled out from his annual confidential remarks and as narrated in para 4(xi) of the O.A.:-
(i) Year 1985. - 'Very Good' in the 1st half and 'Good' in the second half of the year;
(ii) 1986-'Good';
(iii) 1987-'Very Good';
(iv) 1988-89-'Very Good';
(v) 1989-90 - He was graded 'Good' by the Reporting Officer while the Reviewing Authority, after recording reasons graded him 'Very Good'.
4. According to the applicant, if the report of the year 1989-90 is treated as Very Good then he would certainly make the bench mark. The representation of the applicant was considered by the cadre controlling authority i.e. the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. A letter F. No. A-32012/3/2000-AO.II (Vol. II) dated 5.6.2002 pertaining to the subject - ' Promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner on regular basis - DPC held in March. 2002 in UPSC - Representation against" was addressed by the cadre controlling Ministry to the Secretary. U.P.S.C. New Delhi. Since it is the basic letter on the foundation of which the applicant is seeking the review DPC, we would do well to quote the same in extenso :-
"Sir-
I am directed to refer to the Commission's letter No.1/15(34)/2000-AP2 dated 20.03-2002 forwarding therewith copies of the minutes of the DPC for regular promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner held in March, 2002 in the UPSC and to enclose herewith a copy of representation dated 21.05.2002 received from Shri Satyendra Jeet Singh IC&CES:81 against omission of his name from the panels of officers recommended for regular promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner. The representation of Shri Singh has been examined in this Department and there seems to be some merits in his representation as his ACR gradings for 1987, 1988-89 and 1989-90 are 'Very Good'.
2. It is requested that the Commission may examine the representation of Shri Singh and, if required a review DPC may be convened to regularise his ad hoc promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner.
3. CR dossier of Shri Singh is enclosed herewith.
Yours faithfully Sd/-(R3. MEENA) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA."
5. It appears that the UPSC did not agree to reconvene the DPC for the purpose and, therefore, the representation dated 21.5.2002 (Annexure A-7) made by the applicant was rejected and a communication in this regard dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure A-1) was addressed by the cadre controlling Ministry to Shri V.K. Sharma, Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, which reads as follows :-
"I am directed to refer to the representation dated 21.5.2002 received from Shri Satyendra Jeet Singh. Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. Chandigarh-II regarding omission of his name from the list of officers promoted to the grade of Joint Commissioner on regular basis as notified vide notification No. 3/2002 dated 3.5.2002 and to say that the representation of Shri Singh has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and having regard to the various relevant considerations including the fact that there is no material change in the record/documents, as placed before the DPC, it has been decided not to hold a review DPC meeting to consider the case of Shri Singh.
2. You are requested to bring the above position to the notice of Shri Singh."
6. The stand taken by the applicant in the present O.A. in short is that predominantly it is within the jurisdiction of the employer to assess the service record of an officer and to decide whether or not he is to be considered for promotion: the exercise of assessing the record is to be undertaken by the DPC which is then constituted and. therefore, once the employer i.e. the respondent No. 1 -Union of India on an assessment of the applicant's record, came to the conclusion that his case for promotion needed to be reconsidered, the respondent No. 2 - UPSC had no jurisdiction to refuse to reconvene the DPC. It is further maintained by the applicant that once the employer had decided to reconsider his case for promotion, it was incumbent upon the UPSC to convene the DPC to re-consider his case. According to the applicant, the UPSC could not have scuttled the re-consideration at the very outset by refusing to convene the DPC at all. The applicant is aggrieved on account of the refusal of the UPSC to re-convene the DPC for re-consideration of his claim for promotion inspite of the fact that the appointing authority/cadre controlling authority had made a request for the purpose. The applicant, therefore, has prayed that the respondents be directed to hold review DPC to consider his case for promotion on regular basis to the post of Joint Commissioner in terms of the decision of Union of India conveyed to UPSC by letter dated 5.6.2002 (quoted above). Other consequential reliefs such as promotion of the applicant as Joint Commissioner on regular basis with effect from the date his juniors have been extended the said benefit including that of restoration of seniority to his original position in the panel in the rank of Assistant Commissioner while regularising his promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner have also been claimed.
7. The respondent No. 2 UPSC has filed a detailed reply. It is asserted that on receipt of the letter dated 5.6.2002 from Government of India, the matter was carefully considered by the Commission in the light of the relevant rules/instructions and having regard to various relevant considerations including the fact that there had not been any material change in the records/documents, as placed before the DPC, it was decided by the Commission not to hold a review DPC meeting to reconsider the case of the applicant. It is further maintained that in view of series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the assessment of the DPC/Selection Committee save in the rarest of rare cases where the findings of the DPC/ Selection Committee may be tainted with malice. According to the Commission, since the applicant failed to attain the prescribed bench mark i.e. 'Very Good', he was assessed as 'unfit' and not recommended for regular promotion.
8. The Respondent No. 1 - Union of India in its separate written statement has taken the stand that since the UPSC has rejected the representation of the applicant as there was no material change in the records placed before the DPC held in March, 2002, no relief can be granted to the applicant and his case for regular promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner will be considered again in the next DPC which may be convened for regularisation of the ad hoc promotions to the grade of Joint Commissioner.
9. The applicant has filed a replication.
10. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.C. (Respondent No.2) and Mr. Sanjay Goyal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 at considerable length.
11. The main thrust of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that since his employer. Respondent No. 1 has found merit in his representation on the basis of A.C.R. gradings and has requested the UPSC to convene a review DPC to regularize the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the grade of Joint Commissioner, it was incumbent upon the UPSC to obey the direction of Government of India as contained in letter dated 5.6.2002 (quoted above). It was emphasized that the UPSC being an advisory or consultative body cannot turn down the request to convene the review DPC. To fortify this submission. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on certain observations made by the Apex Court in different decisions. A reference was made to the decision in the case of A.N. D 'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130, in which the provisions of Article 320(3) came to be interpreted and it was held that consultation of UPSC does not mean that it acts as appellate authority over the Inquiry Officer. In the said decision, it was also observed that the President is not bound by the advice of the Commission. Reference was also made to another decision in the case of Union of India and Ors v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli and Anr., 1973(3) SCC 592=1973 SLJ 226 (SC). This decision does not appear to be germane to the category in hand. Emphatic reliance has been placed on yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. H. Mukherjee v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 495= 1994( 1) SLJ 107 (SC) in which again the scope of Article 323 of the Constitution of India was considered with reference to the earlier decision in the case of Jatinder Kumar v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1850=1984(2) SLJ 477 (SC). The recommendations of the Commission were not accepted by the Government of India in view of certain subsequent developments. The question before the Apex Court was whether ACC (Appointments Cabinet Committee) was justified in taking into consideration the subsequent developments for by-passing the recommendations of the UPSC. It was held that there is nothing in Article 323 to suggest that the Government cannot take into consideration the developments subsequent to the selection made by the UPSC. Such a view would not be in public interest and may lead to serious complications if the Government is enjoined to make the appointment notwithstanding certain serious matters having come to its notice subsequent to the recommendation made by the Commission. All that Article 323 requires is that the reasons have to be communicated to the Legislature if the advice of the Commission has not been accepted while placing a copy of the report as to the work done by the Commission. A passing reference was also made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Jaiswalv. Ms. Debi Mukerjee and Ors, AIR 1992 SC 749=1992(1) SLJ 220 (SC). In that case, a recommendation made to the UPSC by the Government for selection of candidate for a post was subsequently with-drawn before the post was advertised by the Commission on the ground that amendment of the Recruitment Rules for providing promotion to the post was under consideration. The Commission proceeded with the selection process. It was held that Commission cannot insist on going ahead with the selection and the candidate who was called for interview by the Commission does not have a vested right and that after the with-drawl of the recommendation for making the selection, the exercise undertaken by the Commission was not only futile but waste of public time and money besides hardship to candidates who seek appointment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to each one of the above decisions cited by Mr. P.S. Patwalia and find that they are directly not on the point. The gamut of the above decisions, however, is that the role of the UPSC is advisory or consultative in nature and the Government is not obliged to accept the advice or the recommendation of the UPSC. Reliance on the above quoted decisions is obviously mis-placed as neither of the decision is an authority on the point that the Commission is bound in every case to yield to the wishes of the appointing authority.
12. Turning to the core question, we may sound a note of caution that the relationship of Government of India and that of UPSC is not that of master and servant. The latter owes its worth and existence to the constitutional provisions contained in Chapter II of Part XIV of Constitution of India. The UPSC has come into being pursuant to the provisions of Article 315. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution realized that the democratic system could be maintained only if the civil servants were appointed solely on the basis of merit, by open competition and only if they could carry on the administration independently, instead of blindly carrying out the orders of their political superiors. They have rightly rejected the 'spoils system', under which the administration is carried on by civil servants appointed in consideration of their political service to the party in power. With this avowed object in view, the Constitution gave birth to a Public Service Commission at the Union as well as the State level. It was supposed to be an autonomous body so that it could carry on its functions independently, fairly and impartially through the agency of men of high integrity, knowledge and qualification. The aim and object to constitute Public Service Commission is to ensure recruitment/selection to the civil services on the basis of merits by an impartial body. Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution enjoins that the PSC shall be consulted: (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions etc.; (c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters. There are other matters in which Commission has to be consulted. It is true that the law as settled by the Apex Court is that the words 'shall be consulted' are not to be construed in the sense that in default of consultation, the action of Government under any of the Sub-clauses of Clause (3) of Article 320 would be null and void. Nevertheless where the Government does not accept the recommendation of the Commission, say, as to selection of the candidate, it is the duty of the Government to place the reasons for its non-acceptance before the appropriate Legislature, but it has no obligation to communicate such reasons to the Commission or to the candidate concerned. Inspite of the non-compulsive nature of the advice or the recommendation tendered by the UPSC, this constitutional body cannot be rendered superfluous. If any vacancy is to be filled, the Government must make the appointment in the order of merit fixed by the Commission. So also, the Government cannot appoint a person whose name does not appear in the list, though it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments it will make. When one says that the advice/ recommendations of the UPSC is not binding or may not be accepted by the Government, it does not amount to saying that it is open to the executive Government, completely to ignore the existence of the Commission or to pick and choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted. Once, relevant regulations have been made under the proviso to Article 320, they are meant to be followed in letter and spirit and it goes without saying that consultation with the Commission in all the matters detailed in Clause (3) of Article 320 has been specifically provided for, in order, firstly, to give an assurance to the services that a wholly independent body not directly concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting public servant, has considered the action proposed to be taken against a particular public servant, with an open mind and secondly, to afford the Government unbiased advise and opinion on matters vitally affecting the morale of public services. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the executive government, when it proposes to take any disciplinary action against the public servant, to consult the Commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken was justified and was not in excess of the retirements of the situation. Similarly, public faith and confidence is doubly assured if the recruitment/selection of the candidates is made by a body which is independent impartial and fair. Therefore, the element of 'consultation' cannot totally be ignored in the matters of public service. All things remaining the same, the Government is bound to accept the selection made by the Commission N.T. Bevin Katta etc. v. Karnataka Public Service Commissioner and Ors., AIR. 1990 SC 1233, or to accept the advice tendered by the Commission. The Government is duty bound to consult the Commission and, therefore, the advice given by the Commission cannot be lightly brushed aside. The Government is bound to give effect to the advice of Constitution State ofU.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912. Ours is a constitutional system of checks and balances. The advice tendered by a constitutional authority cannot normally be ignored or rendered Otiose by another constitutional functionary. Mutual respect of each one of the constitutional functionaries is the signature tune of our constitutional scheme.
13. In view of the above discussion, we would be inclined to repel the extreme submission on behalf of the applicant that the Government as the appointing authority wields absolute power to require the UPSC to convene the review DPC. As a constitutional body, the UPSC is not supposed to take dictation from the Government though the latter has a final say in the matter of public employment. The Commission is an independent constitutional authority and exercise the powers and performs its functions and discharges duties as specified in the Constitution particularly in Article 320 in accordance with its own procedure and the law regulating its functioning. Certainly, the executive Government is not in a position to issue commands to the UPSC to act in a particular manner.
14. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, learned Counsel for the UPSC urged that if the Government feels that it can afford to ignore the advice of the Commission (which is said to be not binding), there is nothing to prevent the Government to regularize the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the grade of Joint Commissioner. This submission is the outcome of utter desperation. The Government of India has not taken any exception to the advice tendered by the UPSC. On the other hand, falling in line with the advice of UPSC, the representation of the applicant was rejected in respect of which, a communication dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure A-l) (quoted above) was made. It is not a case where the Government of India is ignoring the advice of the Commission. The Government of India was fully satisfied with the view taken by the Commission. It is not an aggrieved party.
15. It is well settled proposition of law that absence of consultation or if there is consultation, the result of which goes against the employees, does not afford him a cause of action. The provisions of Article 320(3) have been held to be not mandatory and, therefore, do not confer any right on the public servant. In this connection, a reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) and Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 158. The firm legal position as it stands is that the words 'shall be consulted' are not to be construed in the sense that in default of consultation, the action of Government under any of the sub-clauses of Clause (3) of Article 320 would be null and void. The applicant, therefore, has no indefeasible right to enforce the order of the Government of India for convening of the review DPC in his matter. We failed to understand, how came the applicant to enforce the obligation, if any, to convene the review DPC.
16. Now let us examine the request of the Central Government to the U.P.S.C. with regard to convening of the review DPC in the matter of the applicant in the light of letter dated 5.6.2002 (quoted above). A bare reading of this letter would indicate that the Government never intended that a review DPC in the matter of the applicant has, of necessity, to be convened. It has left the matter to the sole discretion of the Commission. Whenever there is a representation by an Officer who could not be selected to a promotional post by the DPC, the appointing authority forwards the representation with its comments to the UPSC for advice. In the instant case, the representation of the applicant was examined by the concerned Ministry and since the department was of the opinion that 'there seems to be some merit' in the representation of the applicant as his ACR gradings for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989-90 are 'Very Good', the Commission was requested to 'examine the representation' and 'if required, a review DPC may be convened'. The Government could not sit over the decision of the Selection Committee and it was for this reason that the UPSC was requested to examine the representation of the applicant and after examination if required and called for, a review DPC could meet. The Government has thrown the ball in the Court of UPSC. The latter examined the matter as desired by the Government and the Commission came to the conclusion that review DPC was not necessary in the case of the applicant having regard to the various relevant considerations including the fact that 'there is no material change in the record/ documents, as placed before the DPC'. There is no dispute about the fact that the folder or say the C.R. Dossier of the applicant as was placed before the DPC convened in the month of March, 2002 remained the same. There was absolutely no change in the annual confidential remarks of the applicant which had already been considered by the DPC. It was in this view of the matter that the UPSC did not find it expedient or necessary to re-convene DPC. It was not a case where the Commission has refused to re-convene the DPC on the unequivocal demand of the appointing authority.
17. The working of the Commission is guided by the instructions issued by the DOPT. There are positive instructions for holding the review DPC meetings in certain circumstances. O.M. dated 10.4.1989 as amended from time to time with regard to subject of holding of review DPC is relevant. Paragraph 18.1 of the said O.M. reads as follows:-
"18.1 The proceedings of any DPC may be reviewed only if the DPC has not taken all material facts into consideration or if material facts have not been brought to the notice of the DPC or if there have been grave errors in the procedure followed by the DPC. Thus, it may be necessary to convene Review DPCs to rectify certain unintentional mistakes, e.g. :
(a) where eligible persons were omitted to be considered: or
(b) where ineligible persons were considered by mistake; or
(c) where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed before the DPC; or
(d) where some procedural irregularity as committed by a DPC; or
(e) where adverse remarks in the CRs were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer.
These instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative."
The situations which are contemplated for holding the review DPC as mentioned above would be attracted where the material facts placed before the DPC were not correct or where these material facts undergo a change subsequently with retrospective effect or where the procedure followed by the DPC was in-violation of relevant rules/instructions. The case of the applicant does not fall in any one of the above categories. The above instructions do not provide for holding of review DPCs to re-assess the officers without any valid reason. No technical or factual mistakes have been established and on the basis of the C.R. Dossier of the applicant, his grading would not change. A review DPC could be held only if the mistake was such as would have resulted in the superior grading of the applicant and turned him 'fit' instead of 'unfit'. The substance of the matter is that review DPC cannot be held for mere asking. Selection by the DPC cannot be throttled or faulted by making certain sweeping and vague allegations to support the request for review DPC. If such a course is allowed to be adopted then every selection made by the howsoever fair and impartial body comprised of persons of high integrity and merit would come to be assailed. The case of the applicant does not fall within the parameters laid down for convening the review DPC.
18. A passing reference may be made to a feeble submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the decision whether a review DPC is to be convened or not is to be taken by the DPC itself and not by the Commission. Shri Patwalia dilated the point by making the submission that the concept of review DPC has to be made by the body which has earlier made the selection. What Shri Patwalia meant was that the Commission should have referred the matter to the earlier DPC to take the decision whether the matter was required to be reviewed or not. This submission is fraught with a number of fallacies and danger. The Government made a reference to the Commission. It is the consultation or the advice of the Commission which is sought in view of the provisions of Article 320(3). The members of the various Selection Committee keep on changing. They assemble for a specific purpose and no sooner the purposes is achieved they become functus officio. It is for the Commission to decide whether in a particular situation, a review DPC meeting was called for or not. The decision is to be that of the Commission and not of the DPC which earlier met for the limited purpose of making the selection. The analogy that the Judge who has heard the case should also hear the review petition would not apply to the case of holding of review DPC meeting.
19. The crux of the matter is that for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner which is in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-16,500, the bench mark prescribed at the relevant time was 'Very Good'. On the basis of the assessment of the ACRs of the applicant for the relevant years, the applicant was assessed by the DPC as 'unfit', as he failed to attain the prescribed bench mark. In the light of the guidelines issued by the DOPT on 8.2.2002 (Annexure annexed with the reply of the UPSC). The same record was made the sheet anchor for holding the review DPC meeting. The Commission rightly refused to convene a review DPC as there was no material change in the record/documents as placed before the DPC. Now the controversy is narrowed down to the fact whether this Court can sit over the decision taken by the DPC/Selection Committee in assessing the grading of the applicant. The DPC has full discretion to devise its own methods and procedure for assessing the suitability of the candidates who are to be considered in the light of the guidelines issued by the DOPT. There are a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point that it is not within the province of the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the assessment of the DPC except in the rarest of rare cases where findings of the DPC may be tainted with malice. In this connection, a reference may be made to Dalpat Abasdaheb Solunke v. Dr. D.B. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 in which the Apex Court opined as follows :-
"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved malafides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
The above legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikant Chaphekar, 1992(5) S.L.R. 635=1992(3) SLJ 73 (SC);Smt. Nutan Arvind v. Union of India and Anr., 1996(1) S.L.R 774; Durga Devi and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2618; and Anil Katiyar v. Union of India and Ors., 1997(1) S.L.R. 153=1997(1) SLJ 145 (SC).
20. There is not even a faint suggestion that the selection made by the DPC was vitiated by malafides. The comparative assessment grading arrived at by the D.P.C./ Selection Committee which met in March 2002, cannot be faulted on any ground whatsoever.
21. To sum up, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the Government of India by letter dated 5.6.2002 did not require the Commission to necessarily hold a meeting of review DPC to re-consider the matter of the applicant for regular promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner. It simply requested the Commission to re-examine the case of the applicant and if required, the review DPC may be held. The Commission in its wisdom found that review DPC was not required to be convened as there was no material change in the record or the circumstances which were taken into consideration by the DPC. This advice of the Commission has been accepted by the Central Government and consequently the representation made by the applicant was rejected. Even if the stand taken by the applicant that the Government of India had required the Commission to necessarily convene the review DPC is taken to be correct. In that event also the Commission was not obliged to convene the review DPC as it has the power and jurisdiction to re-examine the matter and tender proper advice to the appointing authority. The submission on behalf of the applicant that the UPSC being an advisory body was obliged to convene the review DPC as required by the appointing authority and the former could not have scuttled the re-consideration of the matter by refusing to convene DPC at all, is not only un-founded, but without any merit. The powers of the Commission cannot be undermined. As said above, it is not obliged to convene a review DPC., if a demand has been made on the grounds not covered by the situations specified in Para 18(1) of DOPT Office Memorandum dated 10.4.1989. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, learned Counsel for the Commission drew our attention to a decision of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1463/2000 -R.D. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 12.4.2001, in which it was held that the decision taken by the UPSC that the proceedings of DPC are not required to be reviewed/cannot be faulted.
22. In the conspectus of the above facts, we find that it is not a case fit enough in which an order for convening the review DPC at the instance of the applicant is required to be passed. The O.A. turns out to be without any merits. It is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.