B N S Reddy vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B N S Reddy vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2010

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATEDITHIS TI-IE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 __

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.G.SABHAIf}.I5I: ' ;;&~{: 2-

AND

THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE E:3.,4V.NAC§ARA;FHNA"' T

WRIT PETITION No.37'6.4_5/2001' Is--cA::I«: C

BETWEEN :

B.N.S.REDDY \ --_

S/O LATE B N NAJA REDDY5'

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ._ S - ;, ..
SUPERINTENDENTQE' P(_)LICEf'JIG.ILANCE) *
KARNATAKA POWER' TRANSiwI'ISSIOI\I'--- ' =

K R CIRCLE, EAi?~IGAI;O;E.E:560 001
I -- - PETITIQVER
(By Sri: N.S.P--IIADI:I~: _&_NiEEiRA;BAI, ADV.)

II' V. 'IH1ECIUN'IO,N OF INDIA

_ "11:EP_ BY*If_I_S -'HOME' SECRETARY
._ .__MINIST¥{Y_'0E' HOMEKAFFAIRS
A _ 'NEw.DtELHI»I I0 001

2 T'HIZg_UI\IION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REP BY ITS SECRETARY
VDHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD
V'-- -ANEW DELHI--I 10 011

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, I3ANGALORE--56() 001

4» SIVIT ARUNDHATI GPIOSI-I
MEMBER,
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

U A Q'
~. I.
. V",

V.»

1 'M

'K.

DHOI:PUR FIOUSE, SI*IAI*IJAI"IAI\I ROAD
NEW DELHI- I. 10 0.11

SR1 I-IALDER, JOINT SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHL1 IO OOI

SR1 M B PRAKASH

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY : * . 2' «
DEPARTMENT OF I-IOME & TI?AN;SPORT._ _ '
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. " _ '
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001 ' '

Sm C'DINK\A_R -
DIRECTOR GENERAL & 'INS_PEC.'_I'OR=GENERAI, OF
POLICE; IN I:ARI\IATAI.<_A {R-E'Tf'?D} "
NO.380.100_FEET,ROAD'._ _ 1- "
INDIRANAGAR, HA1. II smC;I:.C_~.._ ' "

DR. I:,SRII\I'IVA,sAI-I__' ' '
I3_'IRP:C*FO;R GENERAL OF POLICE
NO. 1 074/ ':'I..1"".Cb1\/IAIEVI-. '

IN I'3.IRANAOVAF2!Cj II «STAGE
BAN(iAI;ORE§56G 03:;

I ._;S'RIu SYEI5' IIFFATIEI HUSSAIN
- 'DEPUTY COMI'v§'I'SSIONER

OF POIJCE (VVIP sI::CIIRmn

'' vIINFA''II<I1'I'Rjai'*P.§OAD, BANGALORE--56O 001

{By Sri:

' "SR1 IIARIHAR
AO_I3'I'FI«OI\IAI, SUPERINTI:?NDENT OF POLICE

BIJAPUR DISTRICT, BIJAPUR

~,SRI B SRIKANTAPPA
..SUPERINTENI)]3lNT OF POLICE

IIAVESRI DISTRICT, HAVERI
I-'{ESI3ONDENTS
& 5.

KALYAN BASAVARAJ. ASG FOR RI

SIVIT SEIEELA K.RISIII\IA, AGA FOR R3. SR1 R.K.I\/IASUR &
KALPA.NAMASUR FOR R9, SR1 M.R.SI*£AI1,ENDI{A FOR R10,
SRI M. EVIADIWIUSUIDIIAN FOR R1 1. SR} I'.S.DII\II€SI"'I KUMAR.

CGSC FOR RI. R2. 81 R4 ([':E3SI£N'I'). R6. R7, R8mSI').}

* _(hefeIT1a.fter

THIS WCP. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8: 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE I, II AND III RESPONDENTS
LEADING TO THE PROCESS OF MAKING PROPOSAL.
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF' TIIIE 3 RESPOND-ENTS
NO. 9,10 AND 1I TO THE INDIAN POLICE SERV.I.CEuIBY
PROMOTION AND FROM TITIE CAT PERTAINING

CASE FILE NO.l84il/2900. AND QUASII
DT. 13.9.2001 VIDE ANNEXP. PASSED BY,'I'I%IE_"CAT,'_*

BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, ETC..

THIS PETITION BEING RESERVED AND I
FOR. PRONOUNCEMEN?~ OF ORDERS °neS_~DAm;

NAGARATHNA' J., MADE F'OLLOWIl?3GI~ Vv
oRDEg_
The petitioner, aS_vSupe_rii1te1IdeI1t of Police
{Vig1'IanCe) Karnataka Pogweiif TraIISlrIIiSSiorIlI--.iCorpo1'ation Ltd"

BaRgal:'5i'ElIVlhaS:v:.fIT€Ifll'2TlLiSIWiI'ili petitioI1, being aggrieved by the
order déii;ed._ in O.A.No.1841/2000 by the

Central AdmiI1iSt._rat*i_ve" Tribunal Bangaiore Bench

A 2. V. facts of the case leading to the filing of this

*._wTit p€t_ili-01'} are that the petitioner. along with respondent

"I'=J.o:.£l3.';"_.I0 and 11 who are members of the Karnataka Police

I Service {K138} were considered for ])1'O1T1OI'lOI1 to the Indian

Police Service under the Indian Police Sen-rice {Rec:1'I.IitIneIIt}

Rules, 195$ (h€I:Ei11aIT.CI', TeIeI'red to as "RuleS"} and under

Indian Police Service {A;)poII1i.IneI1t:] by Promotion

3*'
I

if'

1"'

refeI?red--.--«to as "the tribunal" for the Sake of

*4: 4
(Regulation) 1955. {hereinafter referred to as "Regulation"].

The main grievance of the petitioner is that at t.he tirr:.__e of

consideration of the petitioner and respoizdent. N<)s.9'i,.

11, the aforesaid respondents have been selecte'clVbtite-lltihe'"'a V'

petitioner has not been selected. Aecorcling to tiVie'gie41'itionerj,

he joined Karnataka Police Service hi l'9_l84A.l

the first respondent is the a*plpv'oi.nti11i_2j*-author'itVS}
State Police Service Cadre to Police
Service ('IPS' for short) the Rules read
with the Regulation. is the

selecting authont§?.'e»l'tmd:er lithe regullalt'io'n to constitute a

Selection HClor"11rtiittee;'§£;ii';r;l: S S suitable recommendations
to the first'14esporident;.VThat" the third respondent i.e.. the

State of Kariiatalia authority which 'forwards the

names ol';the oi'fie_ei"s in the zone of consideration working

°anc1§=;"1= selection committee for selecting them by

That. respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and the

third V respolr1.deli'1t were the members of the selection

S.Vcon1mi'tl;ele.._l"or the promotions t.o the {PS posts in the year

:'200t}--'-._th.at respondent l\los.9 to ll were selected and

a._aipl;l3oi1ited to the IPS by promotion by the first respondent":

Union of India by r1otit'ieat,ioi1 dated 'l.l2.2000 and their

:.l'appoir1tment.s were challenged in O.A.l8«fl.l /2000 before the

é»

Tribunal and being aggrieved by the order passed by the

Tribunal. the writ petition has been preferred.

3. According to the petitioner. three '\3"acancie's of

{PS posts occurred in the year 2:.t')0lO"toA_ be

promotion by thetliarnataka State

referred to as "KSPS" for short}.._:Ca_d.r'e l5erso.r1n"e_l 'the

Regulations that the thi1id.respoin--dei_i*t lfo-.rwa1'dled"nine names
of KSPS Officers coming Consideration to
the selection conwniittee:tollfi'll¥t1,i§ by promotion
including the__:pet.iti.0i'ierllandiesponderits 9 to
11. The his noI1--selection filed

applicatiori _b-efore".t~'1e'Trib.tinal W-hich had issued an order of
status--quo »jVj;l3gl.-fore? the tribunal respondent

Nos. and 8 remained exparte and other respondents filed

. replies other pleadings.

re.s}p'onder1ts filed their stz.1ten'ient of objections

before t:he"t1'i.ht1r1al. The 13' respondent. i.e. Union of India

it stated th1a--1;'.t.he State Government is the sole custodian of

_se.rviee.5records of State Police Officers which are required to

n"-.Su_b:nait a proposal for convening at meetirig of review of

«lselection c:om1cr2itt.ee along with the list of eligible State Police

Officers and their service records and direct". the Uniori Public

5»

or.

~: 6
Service Commission for consideration 01' eligible State Police

Officers for their inclusion in the select list, i'o1j.---their

subsequent appointment. by promotion t:o t.he iiidiaii

Service. The commission has to scrtttinizte the --pi"opoysall 0'

'--_ ' 1'

records and fix the meeting of the revirew selection' -{:onim_li'tVtec_V 0

whose names are nominated and asgand 0w'hen~.itfs_.nieeiii'1glis:

fixed by the commission, the 'list?-is p1*epared_byvtliie«s.eIVection 2 0

committee, finaliy approved by_l"tl1e'i._VU1iio1l1'*Public Service
Commission which forms fthye7_sei.ectio--n ~iist._a11d according to
the Union of India, its~'rol.,e* in the eiitirc;" 'process is very

minimal. Hol~r.1ve\-an-,__. it 'has. stat.edthat""the meeting of the

se1ecti;snllclorm}nitteefp by proniotion of eligible
members of the Service of Karnataka to the

Indian Police Servi_ceA,'--._lI{'arnataI<a Cadre for t.he year 2000

.__on /vl--0--,'2000 and the name of the applicant

0wasidttvlyconsidered by the selection coniinittee and on an

o'.rer>¥a1l la'sses1sment of his service records, the applicant

couldnost. included in the list due to lower grading and

it statutory limit on the size of the selection list. Under the

'N.

tjircctmstaiittes, it prayed that the application filed against. it

it 'be dismissed.

5. The second and l'ourth respondents filed a common
reply stating that the main contention of the appiicatnt who

was the applicant. before the Tribunal was that when it. met

on 31/10/2000. the selection committee did not take merit:

int.o consideration while making selection to the...lnsiil-an

'- -.

Public Service.' According to the 'app1i(t£111i.;_:'.."l'1'éV..V:'

outstanding grades than the other officers :;'one'--Afore_l'

consideration, that the selections were arbiftra--1y'

accepted by the authority been 'tl1lv}v{'€l,'€d,
in certain cases and down gradiiing in certain cases
arbitrarily to accoInn1od:~1;:te.. to In reply
to the said contentions. in the

instant case was'<'n.1a'de in"aecordan'ce*.with the Regulations

whereirtyprgjvisicn iS7iInade«.for the selection committee to be
presided over by the':_i'chaii_"n:ia_n or a member of the Union

Public Service" ~Co'n1rr1',€.ssi;f_)11l'*i/xtrhieh make selection to the State

"*Pelic.§°'iOf§ice:s for 'lp1'~on1ot,io11 to the Indian Police Service;

.Vthat'i'n of its constitutional obligations and in

accordance Wi'thi:'the Regulations, the selections were done in

fajust under the Regulations: that under Regu.lation

'- ' 'X

the comm1't"tee classifies the eligible State Police Officers

'-.l.'incl:u_ded in the zone of consideration as outstanding. Very

"-«good. good or unfit as the case may be on an 0V(?i'~&1ll relative

assessment of their service records. 'I'hereaf't.ei'. per

Regulation 5(5). the selection commi'i.tee prepares a list by

.4'

"outstanding", "very good", "good" and "unfit". was rebutted
\ ' "

by stating thatntlhe selection committee i.s not guided merely

by the over all grading that may be recorded in the

the reporting or reviewing officer or accepting at_:tlioi*ity----.b'u§?9i___

in order to ensure justice and fair play an:io:1--gst.. its oyxvny

officers. on the basis of an eXai1é;inati.oyi1f} of iIh.e'i--r lse'rvic;gy.

records and their perforrnanc.e as reﬂ_ect.ed
columns recorded in their for a
reviewing officer ~or i3lCRs for
different years and then:' F;-gieii»/W'.:Vll__a}ri'ives at the

conclusion or grading l'.O'=_b€g8~S:Slg1'1éVd:.l{0_§§iCh eligible officer

in accordarice.. fv5with7fV V the ' » ._Pron1otiloI1 Regulations. While
making the .over--a'1'l th.e selection committee

would take ih.tol'a.ccouAI:._t borders regai'ding appreciation for

.l4.l_rneri._torio1,is work done--*by the officers under consideration.

V'-,S'iiTI1lil'c'iI'lAy'v._fl'}e"lvJS€.l€CtiOI1 committee also keeps in View

.u_'

avv'ai'dii'ig 'peri.alt.ies or for any adverse remarks

'coinmluniloated to the officer which even after due

..eonsiderat.io11 of his representation have not been completely

C}e>s:p:unged by the Governnient. The selection committee goes

'mltjhrotigh service records of each of the eligibie officers by

special reference to the performance of the oflieer during the

last. five years preceding the year for which the selection list:

55,,

-__ ._

is prepared after an over--a11 relative assessment of the

officers in the zone of consideration in accordance _witi1<_the

regulation 5(4) of the promotion regLt]at.ioI1s.

contended that the applicant. could not

ACR reports of the candidates whici;.,_are V'--::<$11ﬁ'aémgiag £31.'

nature and while citing various d_ecision_s°o'E' the~'l€ir,;n}ble Apex ;

Court. th.e second and fourth res_xpondent's. contended that
the assessrnents~rnacie;._'_.b}7" the :cAo"m_I_11ivssioI1 was just and
equitous and according15y,_V of the

application.

'before"the Tribunal also filed its
reply stating that Regulations, a proposal of nine

eligible offic"e~rs"in_i.f1§~,_order of their seniority in the police

'V V' _servsiri'ce alonéf with attrellevaxit records was sent to the second

__.' ' x.

ivbyithe third respondent for preparing a select list

f(.)"1"'t'1V"].'I"€€'\/l¢'W':vi(':sft5l..i"::1C',l€S available as on 'f/1/2000. After listing

the riames of nine persons as per their seniority, in which

ftihei"applicants name is at S}.No.8, it was stated that the

selection committee which met on 31/10/2000, selected

"respondents No.8. 9 and 10 as these officers were within the

zone of consideration at Sl.Nos.3, 4 and 5 whereas. the

applicant was at',§1.No.8 on an ove1'--all assessrneilt of their

'-t
" 1.

merit, that afterlthe issuance of notification dt.1.12.2000 by

respondent No.1 appointing respondents 8 to 10. publ.i.shed,_

by the Government of India: the officers selected"~«tye.re.

deemed to have continued in the post in \vh_i,ch»..ij,h.ey"*we«re

working consequent upon their p1"omo_t.ion..i;o} t'ne.'IPS. cad.1je.t.,.t f

in terms of Rule 9(1) of IPS {Pay} R_u1es{'._1_é354 an»dV51;uhat.:they"

had reported for duty in December"2t)OQ. an order of
status~quo 'was 'granted' the. filed the
applicant before the made for
vacating the lwhile seeking

dismissal of the applicant herein.

8. in reply statement of objection

filed by respondent' stated that respondent No.7

herein_{was.one oithe mernbers of the selection committee for

A'._sele::_tion_ﬁ of,4St_ate Police' Service Officers to IPS: that

(1) of the KCS (Performance Reports}

V _ Rules"; }9.94;v'adVerse remarks recorded in the perforrnance

ofnlrespondent No.9 for the year 1993-94 were

s._c'o_rn1nuni.cated to him by the [)ireci.or and Inspector General

of--l3o1ice, vicle memo dated 18/10/1994 pursuant to which.

" respondent No.9 submitted 21 representation to the State

Government which after due consideration treated the same

'K.
V.

as advisory remarks. by letter dated 7/4/1995 and

./W

.3»

t_.
Bu
I

therefore, the submission that the State Government has no

authority to convert an adverse remarks into an advisory

remark is not correct as Rule 10(1) of the aforesaid"

provide for such a procedure. Respondent

filed an Application No.2"/'81/96 beforemthe

to expunge the adverse remarks contained in ll'-£(')I"~I.:-V, .«

the year 1993434 which by its oi~a_¢_1~ dé;tsd" 18/2af'is97_' h¢}c1"'l

that since the authorities had notktreatedxtheprernairks as
adverse but treated it as advirsoiﬁ remaiiksvvliit-<ould not come in
the way of respondent either while

considering for prorn;o'tionI--.increment or liig.t1ei- salary.

9. it wasf}iurthvei=.__.contended that the selection

committee not ch'a7ll'e.n'ged or altered the contents or

.._gradingsvin~~the of the concerned officers which had

eassigned tits.rown grading but for making over--all

ass-essinerltsy._of~.tiie service record i.t need not necessarily

V _ adopt"thev-sanie grading which was given by the reporting or

reviewing officer in the performance reports in respect of

the candidates as the selection committee has to

Vmake an over--all relevant assessment of the officers in the

" zone for consideration: that all connected service records for

\.
\

the entire service of 9 officers had been sent to respondent

" ' 33 13 :w

No.2; that respondent No.11 was under suspension from
10/5/1989 to 17/1/1991 on the basis of initiation of

Lokayuktha investigation into the allegation of possessioIi'----oi'

assets disproportionate to his known sources oil" i'i--1con:1§..,

during the year 1989 but no charge sheet was ll

any competent court of law and the :Loiray'i,il<i.cha_. 'final

report recoinmencied dropping of t'urt'.l'1l'er_ and"

departmental proceedings initi'ate*d agains"t,_
No. 11 was also withdrawn with a-*v.'arning to l'1in1ino.t':to give
room for such lapses and the'iperiodl'rao§,VsU,spension was

accordingly i:reated:land, tjnlere' Vl£{'k1S_»" n:¢.pl1argeV"'sheet issued or

departniental. l ;»

10, lllwitli._'regard..,~l/to respondent No.9, it was

.' ﬂ

'CQn't<3".Ij'i'<(l€s;li.AtlivB.Al depa1*'tniental enquiry was instituted and by

2000, he was exonerated from all

chargels afterlf'j_accepting the report of the enquiry officer; that

rrespondent; No.7 was a member of the selection committee

and Inspector General of Police [DC and EGP): that

"the; had not given any note of dissent wliile signing the

proceedings oi' the selection cornn":itt.ee nieetirig and that it

was not proper on his part7~to (',0I11I11C*i1l, on the legality of the

decision taken by the State Government with regard to

treating the adverse remarks as advisory rernarks in respect

of respondent No.9.

11. Respondent No.7 who was the thelvl"

selection committee 'filed statement objections f

At the relevant point of tiine, .he.__wasV"woi'king.V»a'se Director "

Generat and Inspector Generalll'Vloil_:}\Qiicel" in
Karnataka. While statingjthat the rnenibers of
the selection cornrnittee State Potice
Service officers VIPS, stated that
respondents 'theVll'l1v"}1*ibiinal and the Chief
Secretargydtov Sri B.K.Bhattacharya
were thevvllmvemher committee and that the

comrnitrtee rnet in"-thie clﬁ_arr§lae1° of respondent No.4, who was

lsllthe of the""'U'PSC. According to him, when the

n1erjn_be.rs'v«.o.i'.t.heV selection committee went: into the chamber

of No.4, the chairman of the committee

",rnentioned;_ to the mernbers including the 7"" respondent

the Tribunal, the procedure to be followed for

l selection of the Police Officers for appointment to the 1138 and

that there were three vacancies for which nine officers in

'~. '' 'K'

their order of seniority had to be considered for selection and

that the performance reports of the officers; for the p_revious

'§;»«e

W»

----: 25 :~
five years up to 31/ 3/ 1.999 had to be considered. Every
member of the seiection connnittee including the chairman

were to peruse the performance reports of two officers write

grade the said reports of the said five years and the

for the years 1994 -- 95 to 199899. The grades H

'M.

columns containing the names :51" the '.offi.cer's'._ were 9'

distributed; that 7:]; respondent obj.e€:Atio_r1.

regard to scrutinizing only the of th(~;.upi"eVi'otjs"'fiye
years and instead the eniiire service.' had 'to. be taken
into consideration. The said objecttoti \?tfa'e9"Q'\ft?1f-Iuied by the

chairman; that the '1?V¢sp'g.p;d.ei'tt'. given the

perforrnarlcen reports and respondent No.9
and similarly;-- the reports of the other officers

were dyistributedj that respondent No.7 gave the grades to

'1'espcvnde1_A1t No.9 fo1*th'e're1evant years i.e.. for five years and

"he"'se"c'ured'itwo'very goods. two goods and one average.

Respyohdent."'hN_oi:4 -~ chairman who also scmtiiiized the

'p_erforn1an'e_e reports of respondent No.9 graded as three very

'*:gcods;'~«.two goods for the said five years and the over all

.___"°gra;di11g of respondent No.9 was recorded by the chairman

utﬂvery good; 'that 'respondeht. No.7 protestted against this

procedure of giving subjective grades and said that he would

not sign the proceedings. The 7"' respondent also perused

féz

the performance reports file of the applicant and found that

all the ﬁve ACRS for the relevant period had been grad.ed~

outstanding and that Sri ]3.K.Bhattacharya.

also perused the applicants file and found

out of five aperfoztnaance reports of

outstanding grades and two oi"-._his pev1'fcrn1a,r:clegA Vreporlts "

should be down-graded as very goodd' _g

12. Respondent l§_lo..'7._ g'iven*d.:lV_':de'tails of the
discussion which place with regard=t.o,,the ACRS written
in respect ofresplolnderii; the" applicant. and their

cornpa1'a:Vtivelvrrie§iit,. ltovrespondeni: No.11 also

there wasa disctrsysionzas' placed under suspension;

that subsequle'nt_ly'.Vfespondent No.7 reluctantly signed the

'grading sheet Agradin'g'"the various oi"i'icers and according to

l'h_ir'n,_ t11eVs&eieci.io'n was subjective and arbitrary and was

basedlon _e>{t~i'ia1ieous considerations. having no bearing on

"Jfi'1€I'i'L has contended that there were good and sufficient

as to why the respondent finally decided to sign the

grading sheet; but that in public interest he cannot disclose

the reasons for doing so. According to the 7"' respondent if

the grading is recorded in the performance reports, it cannot
be changed by way of upgrading or down grading by the

//'_

ﬂy

}uu A
-is
I

selection committee and the procedure laid down by

respondent No.4 was contrary to Regulations 5(4).

13. According to the 7"" 1'espondent, the''approxiniate 0'

\ \

number of yearslof service put in by 9;-ofﬁicers icon-siCie"redw,t .0

by the selection comrnittee was froni 160 ltd years thjatuvl

it was wrong to consider their for 'ap_upovintnf;ent to
the IPS based on the preyious five
years; that respondent u~nd.'ey--;.:'/p'siispension for
about two rroi7..possessing assets
dispropoitionate of' income and he was
not upon his integrety.
With regard' also he laced disciplinary

proceedings o'r1_' several, 'Charges and an enquiry was

t:ond'tiotedl.Aa1id that'th'e"i'eport absolving respondent No.9 of

..4was"-ppissued four days before the selection

eorn'@ittee_ to meet on 31 / 10 / 2000 after keeping enquiry

"ﬁle pending for nearly eighteen months; that for the period

adverse remarks were written in the ACR:-3 of

''~.

.___""'res;pondent'No.9 which the State Government thought it fit

to treat~ these remarks as advisory remarks. According to 7""

respondent, the procedure followed by respondent No.7 had
resulted in tinequals being treated as equals thereby

violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore.
the notification dated 1/12/2000 had to be quashed.

Accordingly. he sought for allowing the application.

K
'N

14. Respondents No.9. 10 and 11 have

reply and additional reply to the applioat':io--n

No.9 and 10 also filed counter ai'i"idavit1«be:iblrelll1/.9

15. The tribunal after ll"colnsiderilng_ the records
produced before it and th;:e"V-plea_:d'in_gs*- a_n.dvargumle'nts of the
respective sides. came to the selection

committee, * aft.e1\'l'lo:o'kinig'" mite Confidential

Reports (ACRs] respondents 9 to 10 for

a period oi'"fiye 1994435 to 199899 graded

__.themfaccordingly ontstianding. very good. good and

average an§i.ai"f_iVrn1ed the selection made by the Selection

to interfere with the application filed

1 _ by peiiitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated

.'3.9,200'i*'"passed in O.A.No.184l/2001. the petitioner has

prérmed this xxvrit petition.

16. Respondent No.2 <3: 4 herein have filed statement'

of objection by way of counter affidavit. reiterating the stand

taken by them before the tribunal.

17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the iearned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 & 5. and learned AQA for Respondent. No.8 and

learned counsei 'for respondent Nos. 9 to 10.

18. Sri N.G.Phadke. learned

petitioner contended that the sle.1vee.tionle'orn1nittee
various grades to the petitioner aVn.d:"respo11dent:mvopsrgi to 10.
That 31.10.2001 was the the selection
cornmittee and that afterigivtnlg llgrades to the

petitioner and the seiection

Committee respondent Nos. 9 and
10 and do'wn'g1'aded'th.elg¥1a'tli<ng of the petitioner which is a

serious.irregttlariltyr it atso contended that the applicants

' 0'ease'-.r.vt}as'-~.lool;ed int'o"by three members instead of two

that the entire attempt: of the selection

corn1nit.tee ensure that the petitioner would not be

H,,,.__4l'selectedrl";. He has also stated that the reply fiied by

":.lResspondent No.7 before the tribunal is not contradicted by

other respondents and therefore the same has to be

considered for setting aside the selections in the instant.

case. He has relied upon certain decisions of the Apex Court

to contend that the best candidates should be selected to be

W,/.'?'

--: 2-G :-
IPS Officers and that in the instant case, there has been

arbitrary action, unreasonableness and uitfaimess meted

K.
'N

out to the petitioner on account of bias and therefore, the

ease of the petitioner must be Considered in its prope:j_

perspective and relief must be granted to him as a_;;§airis.t---t:he

other selected candidates. The decisions relied the "

counsel for the petitioner shall be adﬁerteid. 4'

19. The Assistant So1pieitor4'._G1eneral,

Basavaraj appearing for the U11iU3fli"0f Int1ia..haS:.'a1o'néVtNith :-

Srr1t.Shela Krishna, lear1';e€1__ A.G=.A'.' 1"iVéif»*e"'t:o11tentlVe'CI the

order passecl lbyvltlle is just and proper which does
not Call for any this writ. petition and the
cour1sel._for 'the seoond Vtréspondeiat. has also produced

'Vl'1'EeoI"-Elsi; ***** "
20. _ Learned AGA Smt.Sheela Krishna appearing for

the: ';'ta;lte'v4:'<37fV.lV_Kafrlataka has submitted that the question
V V' _ raiseétin tgldisvifvrit petition is with regard to the nonwseleetion
the petiﬁoiier by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore,

_theV'stalte no say in the matter. _,.»»'fi

21. Learned counsel, Sri.R.K.lVlasur. appearing for
respondent No. 9 has stated that the contention. of the

counsel for the petitioner with regard to the staternent--.__of

objections filed by respondent No.7 before the

cannot be taken at its face value as he was "

members of the selection committe-e'"'an.r1 has Hsignedl t_h_e

proceedings of the selection cori1.mi:.te'e W'hVe1*eb'yf "

petitioner was not selected and tl__ferel'oreI the pleadingsrrrfiled
by respondent No.7 beforetlie tri-bniiail lc»aAnnot"be._lAooyl:ied into
as they are contrary to also submitted

that judicial review' of pr.;:§:§ot:§ns' limited sphere

and that inlltlhe.iVir;sta'nt tliehlpetiitioner is trying to make
out a case only on .ot§--~the statement of objections of

respondent whichirloesil not hold any water. He has also

'V V' that petitioner has not alleged bias against the

responcde-vnts_lWho* are the members of the selection committee

andpllreliedtipoh several decisions of the Apex Court with

lp_regard..to>:_the scope of interference with regard to selections

'K.

A f'rnad"e..pby a selectfon committee. He has also stated that in

" any case, the petitioner was selected in the 2003 selections

an UPS Officer. Relying on certain decisions of the Apex

Court he has stated that the ACR is not the sole basis for

selection of an officer and he has clarified the remarks made

it»:

in the ACR of respondent No.9 stating that they were only

advisory in nature so as to contend that the order passed by

'x.

the tribunal is'ju\st and proper which does not call forfany

interference in this writ petition. The decisions 1'ep].i.ed»ti'pon V.

by him shall be adverted to later.

22. Sri.M.R.Shailendra. _ learned '::Vounsel_-it .ap.;)eail--tr1'g.b:V l'

for respondent No. 10 has also suppoifted the order passedlby
the tribunal and has adopted the"argtin'1ents of 'the-rcjtounsel
appearing {or rexspondente -appearing for

Respondent No,1--lD has order of the

tribunal;

23. r'eply',;. l'earr{ed Counsel for the petitioner,

'ireiteralted-i.yttiat. the in the counter filed by respondent

denied by the other respondents who

were part ol't_'1_1e: selection committee the same ought to have

lxbeen eonlsi;_de1'ed,b'y the tribxunal and interfered in the matter.

stated that the reasoning given by the tribunal in

l para ll of its order is not in accordance with law and that

u only ACRS have to be looked into by the selection cornrnittee

and no other material can be considered into by the selection
eornrnittee and hence, the Selection eon111'1it.tee has tampered

5
€\>
bx}

with the ACR by upgrading respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and

down grading the'petitioneronly to ensure that the petitioner

was not selected and hence, the order passed by the tribunal

without looking into these aspects of the matter

interference in this writ petition.

24. Having heard the learned to

and on perusal of the material o'n.4_record_, the onlyla that

arises for our consideration is to whet.he1"l order
passed by the tribunal for.';an_yA lihterfererlce this Writ
petition so as to grant relief

25. outsetlit,..l_'is necessary to note that in the

instant case the way of promotion to the cadre of

UPS Wasin e:§e1'cise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 and

.ll'"Reguvl.ation 9: ;I'h"e""relevant regulation pertaining to

l'appoilr:t1rtent-'I551 pijomotion of IPS are as follows, Regulation 3

speatés of of the committee to make selection.

l'Regulatiolr1;. 5 deals with preparation of list of suitable

Regulation 6 deals with consultation with the Union

l Public Service Commission, Regulation 7 pertains to the

it manner in which the selection list has to be prepared by the

commission. Regulation 9 deals with the appoi11tment',s to

the service from the select: list. --r-""'f'§

26. lfhe. said Regulation was made in exercise of

powers under Rule 9 of the Recriiitment. Rules a11dVV.Were_V

initially promulgated in the year 1955. SLibseqv;entl§z_;-iii'

notification dated 31.12.1997 Regulation 9

and the amended regulation reads aslzfollowsjjv 'S

"In regulation 9 of the princ'i_oall_regulations?

(i) jbr subregulation (1,), the fo-lleuiingl' regiilalionyyshall be
substituted. namel'y:,f""«. ' --. .

(1 J Appointmentyof a me_rnb_er vV_offthe'~.lSi--a_t'e__ Police Service,
who has ezcpressectl his ivillingness t'oVbe appointed to
the Service, shall be--.n1ade by the Central Government in
the orderin Vwhic'h..:the.,namesv ofthe members of the

State Police 'Service 4ap'_'pea';é.in theselect ltstfor the time

beingii in'g'_orce_;:__dtirirtg_ 'ihepertod when the select' list
remains' tin force: ' '

Provided that 'a.__Joir::'t Cadre, the appointment of
members of t'he'state'police service shall. subject to any
Vagreernent regardvingfilling up of the vacancies in the
_{Joint Cadre." by p."omot'ion of a member of the State
- 'Police »Sen)ice'servi11g in connection with the affairs Q/'
any.s.uchV State, be made in the order in which the

"narnes the members of the state police service occur

parts of the select listfor the time being
irllfoyrceg

Provided further that the appointment of an officer.
.9 k' whose name has been included or deemed to be
"~.i.ncluded in the select list provisionally under the proviso
to subregulation (5) of regulation 5 or under the proviso
to sub~regulation (3) Qfregulaiion 7, as the case may be,
shalt be made within sixty days after the name is made
unconditional by the Commission in terms of the first
proviso to sub-regulation. (4) of regulation 7:

Provided also that in case a select list" officer has
expressed his unwillingness for appointment to the
Service' he shall have no claimfor appointment. to the

K' 'a

Service from that select list unless he informs the
Central Govemment through the State Gouemment
before the expiry of the validity period of the select list,
revoking his earlier expression of unwillingness for
a19l0ointment to the service.

(ii) stlbsregutation (2) shall be omitted.

27. The proposal consisting ():{' .f(V)]>l'(.:'I"'t7\7:1I'.'J'.-lg' l.el1,:g,It§1re

officers in the order of their senioritv in the State 2 oltilced'

servlce with all 'relevant KI'€CO1'C1,_'SF"'.W8S hxsent 'third
respondent to the second .responden_'t-- for prepa1'i.ng..a select

list of three vacancies as alvaiglabiev namelye
1. Sri N.So4rnVashekiar" " _ _ _
2. Sri Praj/ee}j3..l-l{11n*}_ar€'§j'z'Va

Sri Syejd_VUlfath _Hut.ssai11_
V.,_Sri-_R.S.l+lar-ihar ' ~
Sari B.Srika'I1:tatp'pa_ ._ ,--~
S1'iaK.tSrini*vaSa ..
Sri B~;tA.V'Pad'ma'nayana
V Sxri B.N;Strinivasa Reddy
;_Sri 3?.l\/Iuniswmnyx

ewsowsw

list. the petitioners name is at Sl.No.8.

iwhileu thexlcandidates selected are at Sl.Nos.3. 4 and 5.

A l..:f}'.hereI£fore, it is not disputed that the selected candidates are

' senior to the petitioner. The selection committee meeting

" convened by the second respondent on 31 / 10/2000 and

the selection committee included the names

of responde'r1ts 9' and ll in the select list, as suit:-jigale for

appointrnent t.o IPS against the three vacancies is in
accordance with the regulation 5(4) and 5(5). in the instant

case. the State Government: issued a notiﬁcation dared

1.12.2000 whereby, respondent Nos. 9 to 11 were

by promotion to the Indian Police Service on p1*ob'at'ion'.».:

said notiﬁcation though dated 5. l2.2.000has the

notification' issued by the Gover1irner1~t;V_z of

1.12.2000 with regard to the saidr.appointrneAntsis
challenged herein. The s"e.lected"officers-».,as oan"the./date of
appointment to IPS were Cominissioner

of Police on _ City; Addl.

Superin:tende'm:eV5.V_V Bijapur District;
Superintendent iofav':_ii3.oliace;"»..iIDirectorate of Civil Rights

Enforcenientf' VBangaloreV."~*"iV respectively. and on their

' ' IPS, these officers
_ to have continued in the

sair1e"posi.s;'ijyissuance of order of equivalence.

Before going into the merits of the case, it is

Vi _.n_elcessary to advert to the position of law in the matter of

00 promotion by selection of State cadre officers into All India

~ €

Service, IPS in the instant case.

29. Learned counsel tor the petitioner has reliedon

the following citations:

a. in the case of Union of In.dit1'*--«and

Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and

in (2000) SCC' 698, it is is
stipulated it is 1ion--seleetion ":beTil_led.olntvhehasis of
seniority subject to means
fitness in all respe(:'ts. oostulates the
requirement or satisfying a
benchmarkVprextiotigiy" ri§¢(.',;r--'a.§aL§§é§bject of fulfilling thi.s
requireinentrthe on seniority. There is no
requi.rement,ofeomparative merit both in the

case "se.niority._-_"c'urn' -- ﬁtness and seniority~c:um--merit.

0lvleritﬁenni:9iiit'ability"'on'vthe other hand, with due regard to

'seniority' 'is'p1*esei'--ibed in the case of promotion to All India

serviees ot".alE__e:ligible candidates and selecting best out of

[them where there is assessment of comparative merit. The

'' said: observations were made in t.he context. of the criteria for

syselleetion for promotion on the basis of three categories

1T.1_amely seniority eum fitness. seniority CLIITI merit and merit

~ euni suitability with due regard to seniority.

b. In the case of Olga Tellis and others Vs-Bombay

Municipal Corporation & Others reported in

SC 180), though is a case arising under _

Corporation Act and right to life under A1"t..,?:'1"van'dpluli1cle1' ll

Articles 39--A anq 41 of Constittition, of :_lAnc1:ial.l3x}as"'oitclCl~___in:.I1i .l

the context. of procedure thatfyvas fol.lowed

case while making the seleetion.llll"'ln the it is
stated that procedure l'l.axy"i11nst to
norms of justice and fair" which is
Unjust 01' case it would
attract the vibe thereby vitiating the law
which. l consequently the action
taken it lTl3af of the executive Govt. must

be inforrnecl 1'ea.sonv.ari'cl must be free from arbitrariness

. which is :I1'1l~3'llT118.l re'q{;iilrement.

A.K.Kripak and others vs.- Union of

V _ Indie &v--..'otiu-élrs reported in (AIR 197'0 SC 150), was cited

1-egafd to applicability of rules of natural justice in

l »_ad_n1*inist1'atiive actions particularly with regard to selection

* -made by a Selection Boardxand where there is a bias shown

by the members of a Selection Board then in such a case the

selection is vitiated. ﬁx

d. In the case of R.S.Das vs. Union of India 82. Others

reported in {AIR 1937 so 593), is a case which4.aris_es__

under the All India Services Act and Indian _

Services (Recruitnient Rules), 1954 _-- V linidiart

'N.
\

Administrative Service [Appointrnent-.._Liov 1 Prorn'otiioni,t:e.l

Regulations, 1955, wherein it.=is.__.statedv that the

object of the promotion systetfnnbasg cfjmgiméd the
regulations is to secure iiititiinbelits for
promotion to theg'I.A.S bone pf the
adrninistrative S This object is
sought to p//fg§gl;:1lations in prescribing
merit order to judge nierit
the regulatiorislprovide._tor_:c'ate--gorization of eligible members

of theVS_tate Seiviee on the basis of the service records

l"~xNhiChl:'ElIffA€, seruti11iz'e'ct"by the Committee consisting of high

rai:I_{§_i't;cr" "of the State Government and the Central

':5

Govtﬁand again scrutinized by the State Govt. and the

~.an:{iloI1ly thereafter final shape is given to the

*:_'selVee'tioi1 list. Therefore there are adequate checks and

'N.

S safeguards at different. stages by diffei-ent authorities. But if

any dispute arises with regard to the arbitrary exclusion of a

senior member of the state service the matter can always be

investigated by perusing his service records and eornparing

Pi-/<

the same with the service record of officers who may have

been preferred and that would certainly disclose the reasons. 'V

for the supersession of the officer. It is true that: wliieri'

' '\

is the sole basis for promotion the power 'V --ot-"dfselection

becomes wide and liable to be abusedtvwith. ',Cll:l;flC1.il)[}7Vb'lll.,:':.7

that does not justify presu.mp_ti0n rega,1'ding'lV--l. :arbitra;ry"i

exercise of power. The n1achi.nery'rdesigned'-for preparatioii
of select list. under the reaul;¥1tic.'ns i.llo"r' jprornotion India
Services ensures selection.
There is no Committee
would not manner in making

selection. The":?e.con'i.mendations_ of the selection committee

are scrutmized Govt. and if it finds any'

discriiﬁiiation i the=select'ion made it has the power to refer

'the "mlat3£A.e.i' to tlielcomrnission as it is under the legal

obligation._t,o-lconsider the View expressed by the State Govt.

aloiigvxvithcytherecords of officers before approving' the select

V..list. Acco;.rding t;o the Apex Court. the selection committee

'.and'"the coiiirnission both includes person having both

" experience and expertise to assess the service records and

ability to adjudge the suitability of officers, though the

Courts have ample power to strike down the same and that

is an adequate safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power.
A

e. in the Case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Maharajg

Dharmander Prasad Singh reported in (AIR

997) the procedure with regard to judicial rexriewliasairbieeln H

stated when an issue is raised as t.o:"V{fhe't«her'_4 a _decivsion.v--i§sV

vitiated, by taking into account irrelevant, or 1_1egle'e,ti.1:1g

take into account: relevant 'factors, is__ so "manifestly
unreasonable that no reasoIiable"*'autho1:1jty entrusted with
the power in question eould"reasoriabl3id_Aeorne to such a

decision wherein, judicial '1'eVie\'«v:'ef "the«v_decision--making

process would"inL'clud.e';7eXarn_inatio.r1,{has a matter of law. the

relevance_oi"--»the'factors,
f. in 'the. case '«..'oeiTV'tR_:cirn:ci;1a Dayaram Shetty «vs.

International. '};irport~--V_d'Au7thority of India & Others

"VV'repova§_ifaed;b_.i:r1 {197"9}«e....sec 489 = AIR 1979 so 1623, it

has been'-_c,i'ted. ;31~i_ the point as to whether a person can be

blatslrcllisted giving him an opportunity to be heard.

hlhn the s,..ai"c1...decision.. it is stated that: the power of discretion

A Government in the matter of grant of largesse

Wintluding award of jobs, contracts. quotas, licences. etc.

''*_must be crorifiiied and structured by rational. relevant and

nondiscriminatory standard or norm and if the Government
departs from such standard or norm in any particular case

or cases. The action of the Govt. would be liable to be struck

down. unless it is shown by the Government that7..tlie.

departure was not arbitrary, but was based on so'ii'te.fya_1ié§_.__ '

principle which in itself was not irrational, unreas'onab:leu_or

discriminatory.

'M.
' \

g. In the case of A.L.Ka1ra--.:o's..V_a Projeetvsutlivﬁiqittipmént

Corporation of India Ltd. reported._in...(19$4}--3HSC5C 316,
it is stated that an acting under a

regulation is bound by it

h. in the _ 8:. Another vs.
Gurdiattllgltitgrrtirygst c'i':4ite§fs».u}epo}_£éd"in (1980) 2 sec 471),
which lrnatterj: under the Land Acquisition

Act. it is stated .th'VatA'whc"n Inalafides are alleged against

. it '*Ce1't-ain persons Who*~d"' not counter the said allegations by

the Court then in that case the allegation of

inalaliides to be accepted.

inenlthe case of Prabhakar Singh 82. Another vs.

aniazi of India 82. Others reported in (2006 (3) ATJ 364).

a decision of the Delhi High Court wherein it is stated that

when over all grading in annual confidential reports recorded
by the I-lirarchy of Officers is inconsistent, the DPC can

make its own assessment and unless there is some objective

%§
/7'

W: 33 :»

material or reason shown, the DPC cannot tone down the

ACRS so recorded. in the said ease, the DPC downgralelerd

junior officers from outstanding to very good ar1d_u'p--gra.d__ed_,:V"

seniors from average to very good without givin..g;i,a'I*iy treason'

or showing any material. to' do so. The n1atter._w'as V.1jenjiitted

back for fresh reconsideration in accordance wit.h.--l-awl.' l'

30. Learned counsel for r_es'pon.d'e.nt no.V§A has cited

the 'following decisions:

3.. ln the;-ease Kaéiyarliis. Union of India
and other-.51fep'bEt.g;1_iajAVrR :997:;c 2656, with regard to
the jurilsclietionl Tribunal, in the context. of

a challenge 'made »-axxseleetion of a candidate to a

prom§ot.io1aal post was held that the Tribunal could not sit

as an appellate authority unless selection

lllassiaded' :llll_1a_sil.l.V:heen vitiated by mala fides or as being

arbitrary... v "

l In the case of Durgdevi and Others vs. State of HP

wcitnd Others reported in 1997 4 SCC 575 in the context of

recruitment process and a challenge made thereto Apex
Court has held that the Tribunal Cannot arrogate to itself the

power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and

consider the fitness and suitability for appointment that was

the function of the selection committee. The order

Tribunal in the said case was remitted back to th_e;"'tribt;trtjai

for a fresh disposal after hearing the parties.

c. In the case of State of Madyd:';PrLtdeshii"us'§

Chaphekar reported in AIR it"22_1'
of promotions and adverse rerntarrrspi~in*-annnai*conﬁdential
report the Apex Court held 'overstepped its
jurisdiction in reaching: the adverse
remarks were Temployee to the post

of Deputyt--»Direc.toi*1.:;,A_ the function of the

'I'ribuna1V,to-- 'assess'-the"seIviC~e' record of a Government

servant and'aorderxhisa p1*orrtotion on that basis. it is for the

. _ auth,oritie's to exfaiuate the same and make recommendations

tosucn _veva1u'a'tions it was more so. when instant case was

n0t".2_1hfit.'V"_ease2*vvhere even a direction to consider the

. en"1p'l'oyeeV.f.o'r"promotion could be given as the employee kept

forseven years till he approached the Tribunal and it

_ xftrotttd not be in 'the interest of justice to issue any such

-~directi.on after a period of more than a decade.

d. In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke ---«vs.

Dr.B.S.Mahajan, reported in AIR 1990 SC 434, the Apex

I
U.)
LI"!

Court has heid that it is not the function of the Court to hear

appeals over decisions of the Selection C'.O1'11111ll.l€€ and

scrutinize relative merits of candidates and that whether

candidate is fixed for a particular post or not

decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee it

has the expertise on the subject as the

expertise.

e. In the case of Appellant vs.

Union of India 82. Another AV r3gp£'»-'te,:i_:i"i.i:;.VAirR 1996 so
3352, it is stated"tp_hl_at the eannot sit over

\ ,

assessment it "iéifdpe Dleplartniental promotional

committee as an appeliate « atithority.

f. "the ease.' R.l5'onnuswamy -vs.« The Registrar

y:iéi,ycl4si_;y and another (1992 (4) sm 23), It IS

sitate-ti for the High Court to sit in appeal or to

_ interfe_re f_aVith.l~"the decision of the selection committee with

regard tovihe suitabiiity of the candidate for the particular

_ post. iinless there is an infringement. of fundamental right.

In the Case of Bihar State Public Service

Commission and another ~vs.-- Dr.Shiv Jatan Thakur
reported in (AIR 1994 SC 2466). ii: is stated that a IT1g'II1lZ)€l'

..»»

of the public service commission Cannot question the duties
discheiiged by the commission as a body while he is its

member or while he was itsmembei'.

h. in the case of The Chancellor and ~

Dr.Vijay Anandkar and others [{1994)__1 SC("2"i.s

stated that it is not a bonafide at; o}r1iA~thelii'.partl'

members of the Committee "'--~to 1*e.nege "_the:1i-...__o\;§zn

recon'1mendations by writing to thehitgher autho_ifit.y that the
selected candidate did not.1aosAsess{_anuesiselntial qualification
but this aspect was oVe1':.il;uoked by'v.the"eor1ivniittee nor is it
proper to encoulfageiinori.sleleieted to obtain letters
to this efiTect.f1*ornV'lVti'ie. shelling of renege.

i. in of 95 respondent the order of the

'ﬂarriataliga, ~.Adminis'tra'tiVe Tribunal in A liccttion
. .. PP

aw; 20/1/1997 has been cited, wherein it is

stat':e_dlthat..'reniarks made in the ACRS of respondent No.9

lrwoulel iiotjeorne in the way of his future Career either while

fC'onsi"d~e1*ing for promotion or increment or for higher salary.

1n the case of Mir Ghulam Hussan and Others «vs.-

" V Union of India and Others [(1973) 4 SCC 135]. it is stated

that the absence 01' adverse l'€'I7{1E}l'l{S would not entitle a

Govt. sewaiit, to promotion automatiically.

-,./

k. In the ease of Ramanand Prasad Singh Va.-.r__:_d

another -v§.-- Unjon of India and others [(1996)

64], it has been held that the selection COIT1l'I1iU€.t3:"dO€:ST "sooth '

necessarily adopt the same g1"adii1g:-which

reporting or reviewing ot
candidates infaet the selectionlconirnittee niakesv-,:aii._:'overdall
relative assessment of ifeport d'ossiers of the
officers in the zone of not evaluate
the C()1"lf\iCl€I1ti@1_.v1'«'3«:[;3'L'.3."1; isolation. It

is after thi's--»._as'sefssment that the best

candidates-are' ~p.nt'i::e;i ,the_se_lVeet ~l.i.fst,_ V

31. What iernerges from the Various Case law

andweitlations i*e'li_ed upon by the learned counsel on both

isvltliatjin the case of selection made on the basis of

s:-:niotrity-«r§_t11.I__n'«~nierit, a minimum merit has to be satisfied by

thel2"pe11v'i:ieul'ar officer and that in the ease of All lndia

:-Servéieevs" where rnerit--Curn-suitability with due regard to

l"se'ni'oi"ity is prescribed in the context. of promotion,

"assessment. 'of comparative merit of all eligible candidates

and selecting the best out of them is a mandatory

require ment. ' X

419'

ficer in respect of leach' of ~

32. With regard to the various propositions stated in

the decisions of the Apex Sourt relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. particularly in the coni;ext}oii

unreasonableness. malqfides and arbitrariness. we can ,

no second opinion on the same. However. the qu_esti.on-.is~. as it

to how, in the instant case the] pet_itieVn"e1' '1na_s"_bee1"i

prejudiced or has been adversely _afi'ectedl'o.n accboﬁulnt' of the". V

action of the selection comInit.teelV"its:the
to be determined. lnfactfﬁon t--:t:i11joti_gh the"pl'eadings

before the Tribunal, we do not i'indlliiha.t.._la1E(y-.case of bias on

the part of any rrieinbe1's of i§he..'se'l.ec'tijonvcofmmittee Vis--a--Vis

the petitzaonerldhascbeein'pleaded, i.h:erefo1*e, all those decisions
with regard to bias_are:'I1ot--~ajf2*pl.i'cable to the present case.
(33, L the case of R.S.Das referred to supra,

the A;3e:§:,l,'Court ha catego1~ica1ly stated that the machinery

ll'd.esi,g1ietdV:"'»__¥1*di*«._ﬁireparatidn of selection list under the

1'egn.l._at'.i()n.. promotion to All--india Service ensures

l'o.bje(:1,iv'e_a'i1d impersonal selection. The selection committee

con';5é.ir.ituted by highwanking responsible officers presided

"over by the chairman or 21 member of the Union Public

Service Commission but the Coniinission is under a legal

obli;,;at,io:1 to consider the views expressed by the State

Government along with the records of officers before

approving the select list ankcl where power is vested in a

aut.l1ority. there is a presumption that the same wo1;l1ll'd-

exercised in a reasonable manner and if the seiectioni-"i'su.""'

made on extraneous considerations""or.pinT_ an4"'aIrbit1'a_Ify

manner Courts have ample power t0l'st1'ikleJclownlthe

and that is an adequate sai'eg--uai:d against the 'arbitrary

exercise of power. Therefore, the.questi0n that'a.r_ises§ in the

present. case is as t.o whether '"pet.itiener has been
__ \ 'ix. __ ; . '.

successful in makirzg out;'a"case t'li.a't__heV'.wasuexcluded from

being promot_ecl to of arbitrary exercise of

power by the l's.electio'n cornmititeellll It is only under such
cireunistanees. woul'd:_j~z.idic_ial.review of the selection made in
the instant Casevcany arise.

" _ 'In"the-context ofjudicial review of the merits of a

sele:;tie11 1na'de_£br appointment. to a service or a. Civil post. it

to noted that the Courts or the Tribunal is not

to play the role of an appellate authority or an

' '.''unipi1'e with regard to the proceedings of the DPC and that it

cannot sit in judgment over the selection made by the DPC

unless the selection is assailed as being initiated by

Inalafities or on the ground of it being arbitrary. it is not the
*5
if

Mi'

;._l

officer in respect of the candidates. The selection comrnittee

has to make an over all relevant assessment of C0nfide_ntial

reports as well as the other material which are sent .

Comparative assessment. the bestsmcandida't'es---- to be

selected based on seniority.

35. 'The 'Tribunal _afterg'o--i_ng ltnljoughll

proceedings of the selection coininitteeheld'on'.=3ll'i,(vllOl/2000 V

aiong with the final proe.eedings selection Committee,
the proceedings pertaininggto i:l'le-lnianners' which individual

candidates were--.firs_t g1§'aded_}.nnsuallyand then on an overall

grading the inembers of the selection
coimnittee had not only the final proceedings

but also the =proceedin'gsrelating to the annual gradings and

;p_A--.g;'a.dings""'""of'l the candidates including the

[l)et;i:ti'oner and respondents No.9 to l l separately

andl"t:i'1erealter:l Came to the conclusion that the members of

the 'selection committee including the 7"' respondent had

eleaijly indicated their endorsement of the over all rading

uandlihe final decision of the selections made by duly signing

V "lithe proceedings. The contention of the applicant. that there

were irregularities as pointed in the reply statement filed by

respondent No.7' was not accepted by the Tribunal. 1,

of the officers in the zone of consideration. Therefore,

over~all relative assessment. of the service records V. of the

officers has been done in the instant case and_jhence.__} the

contention of the petitioner that the to be"

made by the selection committee solelyhon

correct. The ACRS along withother reievarit mjaterial sent by it

the State Govt. have to beeeeVl'i'coi:sidered. while
classifying the eligible:_.pOfficeireseee:_éindpepreparinegl the list of
officers to be promoted to e

38. tile'-:,pe'titioI1.er that there has
been ,t{pg;raei;y.1g:':'d§tv;1g£¢ta1ﬁg of the officers while
assignihgeeover--all'rela'[email protected] vis~a-vis the service

'.\

reco1"_d_s cafxno't a'ccep"ted as the grading given by the

se'l:ee'tio--n oommietteei * in terms of Regulation 5(4) based on

_ 'pe'1*vfo'r':i'lance reports and other relative material sent by

thee'eSt.atce'Cgoiiernment which is an independent assessment

to be made by the selection committee in respect of the

officers and thereafter. the over all relative merit of

the oi'ficers has to be considered by the selection committee.

Therefo1*e. the contention that the petitioner has been down.

graded by the selection committee while Respondents No.9 to

11 have been upgraded is not correct. it is also to bpje noted

--: 44 :--~
that based on the relative merit. assessed by the selection

coniniittee and the seniority of their officers, the selections

have been finalised.

\ =

39. In the instant case. much reliance sh-a,sv.been".

placed on the reply statement filed by respond_en't...N'oA;.'?

was a member of the selection committee,' which corisi::_1e'red

the selections in the instant case andxitllwas coyriiendcd that

since the reply given by respondent lznioltmbeen
contradicted by the other itvlhas to be

concluded that the said reply ivl£S'._fEiCC Value and
on the selection has to be set aside.

In this context, ~rel'eylantp..~to refer to the decision of the

Apex_ Court» in._'1}_he*--._lca"se of Bihar Public Service

«.._ACoivi1ri1ifssicn, sup'ra--;----where. in categorical terms, it is stated

*gthat" no-._rne'1"r1b'c--r of a Public Service Commission can be

all~'e)tyecl cfuestion the validity of decisions or the

peri'o1'niar_1ce of functions or duties discharged by the public

{Vservisge commission as a body while he was its member. It

otzglit. to be 'so for'the simple reason that such member must,

iegarded to be a party to the functions required to be

pe1'i'ormed or the duties required to be discliarged by the

pubiic service commission as a body or inst.itut.ion even

')_/,,.»e'°'"'

though he might have been a dissenting member or a

member in a minority or member who had abstainedlsfrom

takind art in such function erlormed or duty d'i's'char_fe1&i.._"

The discretionary remedy Vested in the "

Article 226 of the Constitution cannot th.ei'efor"e be aillcwed

be invoked by a member of ther"i?ub1ic'Service co-'my lission to '

question the correctness or validitylof functions or
duties discharged by Qylselryiyce.ppcommission as a
body or institution establish
procedures. the instant case,
the 7"' V that the procedure
was not in accordance
with lanr, signatory to the selection made

and hence,"he"cannotsubsequently withdraw himself from

~._the!siai.d_:sc.1ectioVn'iayiiling a statement of reply contrary to

pl made. Thus in the instant case, the provisions

hlaé"-:_ complied with by the selection committee

and endorsed and signed including the 71-" respondent and

ntfcase of arbitrariness orkmalafides has been made out by

the petitioner.

40. It is relevant to note that the sanctity of the

selection process or the sanctity of the selections made has
~'i

to be maintained otherwise, it would be a travesty of the

selection process if the candidates are encouraged to

'A.

question the process of selection committee

selection is over by meeting the members of the ~

committee and obtain material suitable to thediirmcase. '

41. It is also necessary t0::n0tetI1va't_ the

written in respect of each officer h1gh'e':i'.offi'cer. 'ford'

the respective years. At of p'm.miosng'ra group
of officers who fall theprone.ofyconsidderation, a
comparative merit of 'the reports or the

ACRs h__as._-the-'selection committee. The
rnateriali * found' ACRS cannot simply be

attttepted~ or at: their face Value by the selection

if that be so. then they would have been

no"necess'i'ty"yof constituting a selection committee for

~V of assessing the comparative merit of the

:f.,oAi"i"iee1's"since with regard to promotion to All India

Service, it is the most meritorious officers who are

.yirit,hir3 the zone of consideration and having the

requisite seniority who have to be promoted, keeping in

mirici the object for which they are promoted to the Ail~
ii/'

India Service. Under the circumstances, the selection

X
K' \

committee meets for the purpose of considering not only

the ACRS of the respective officers but aiso

purpose of making a comparative assessment_foffthe.._pl.

said officers who fall within the zoneof cqjnsidefratione»soap

that the best officers are promoted

Hence, the Committee has '--t:o"*~..pappl"y.__its_1rriin.d""to"the " it

service record and also..mak.e""its'p_:ovifr1_assessrnevvnt of the

-'s.
\

service record and the1'ea.ft'er, comparative

assessment of 'the'_- officers _:cion.clerned dr'aw up the list of

se1ect.edl'can.didat:es; lTherefo'r'e';"the selection committee
does hot . evailuatepﬂonfidential Report of an

individual 'ofﬁce: 'V--inA'-.iso~=1'ation as is done at the time of

--.ii,W1*it;i':i1g¢nofw the lCo'i'i'fidential Reports by evaluating the

partieii'iar'v Vlcffijcer concerned. It is intact, after a

.. 'N
.e. \

ctiriipelifative'assessment, that the best candidates who

are narried in the select list are selected. Hence the

l' seleeiiion committee has not exercised its functions in

. _..an arbitrary or unreasonabie manner in the instant

case .

42. 'As far as the contention that the selected
candidates had adverse remarks in their ACRS and/ or were

facing disciplinary action is concerned. the said £act.si».tvere

considered by the selection cornmittee and on

the comparative merit of the candidates ._tl1e"

selection was made by the seleC;t;io11_coni;n1it.Atee_."-£11the

instant. case, it is not proper for this'gCoi.1rt. to.vvcntu're °'int'o

the question as to whetherxthe sel.ect.ion co111_rnit--tee vvas right

in assigning the coniparative candidates falling
within the zone of considerationand_.~giv'e":'its"_.own judgment

on the same. _..'ii;.eifselection._V:.comniiftt.ee comprising of high

oi"fi<:ials'V'o'fVlV G§x2§rnnienlt.V as well as the Central

Governrr:--er1t".«. and theVUnio:1'..§'ublic Service Commission in

our opinionl'Constitij;-_teAt1nV 'eirpert body who have the expertise

__t0 service----records of the candidates and also their

dimervse.__nierit'_'and have arrived at a decision to promote

t.o 1.1 for IPS. The said decision arrived at

by the:..s:el.ecVtion committee cannot be substituted on a fresh

..:"i»con:;1a1'at'ive merit of the candidates assessed by this court.

the circumstances, the contention of the counsel for

it "the petitioner that the petitioner was down graded and the

se1.ected candidates who were less meritorious were

Lipgmded by the selection committee cannot be acceptedgi

,_y

43. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application. The writ petiti0n... *- hence fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to byééir their own costs.

*S/mus H

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

B N S Reddy vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2010

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna