Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sunil Y Patil vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 7 January, 2026
1 OA No.322/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.322/2016
Dated this Wednesday the 07th January, 2026
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Shri Sunil Y. Patil
Age 55 years,
Son of Yuvagonda Patil,
Working as Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Amravati,
Residing at 701, Vibhavari,
Dinshaw Vachha Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400 032. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Vishal Shirke)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Milan Jackson
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f
1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba
bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso
Department of Personnel & Training,
Alphanso
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The State of Maharashtra
Chief Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
New Administrative Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2 OA No.322/2016
4. Shri T.G. Kasar
Collector, Hingoli,
District Collector's Office,
Hingoli - 431 701.
5. Shri Shekhar Gaikwad,
Collector Sangli, District Collector's
Office, Sangli - 416 416. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Dr. V.B. Joshi - R2
Dr. V.S. Masurkar - R3 )
Order reserved on : 02.01.2026
Order pronounced on:07.01.2026
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and set aside the Notification dated 17.01.2013 as well Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 as the decision of the Review Selection Committee dated 14.07.2014 qua the applicant with all consequential benefits and also seeking the direction to the respondents to promote the applicant into Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the select list for 2010 and, if required, in the select list for 2011 and grant him all consequential benefits w.e.f. 17.01.2013.3 OA No.322/2016
2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant are that he belongs to 1987 batch of Deputy Collector in the State of Maharashtra. On 09.07.2012, the meeting of Selection Committee was convened by the UPSC for considering the cases of members of State Civil Services of Maharashtra for promotion to the IAS against the vacancies of the years 2010 and 2011. The ACRs of the applicant for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006 were erroneously recorded as B+(Good). By considering the said ACRs, the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 09.07.2012 granted overall relative assessment to the applicant as 'Good' for the select Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso list of 2010 and 2011. The respondent No.1 issued Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 impugned Notification dated 17.01.2013 effecting promotions of 3 officers for the year 2011 into the IAS. All these officers were junior to the applicant. 2.1 The applicant filed OA No.401/2013 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was withdrawn by him with liberty to approach the Government of Maharashtra to review of his ACRs. On 15.03.2013, the Government of Maharashtra passed order 4 OA No.322/2016 upgrading the ACRs of the applicant for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.02.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 24.07.2005 to A+(Outstanding).
2.2 The applicant filed OA No.532/2014 before this Tribunal which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2014 directing the UPSC to take immediate steps to reconsider the applicant's case for select list 2010 onwards. The State Government, thereafter, upgraded the ACRs of the applicant for the period 24.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 (2004-2005) and for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 (2008-2009) from 'Very Good' to 'Outstanding'.
2.3 Pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso 27.02.2014, the Review Selection Committee of the UPSC Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 met to reconsider the case of the applicant. However, the Review Selection Committee again granted overall assessment of 'Good' to the applicant for the years 2010 and 2011. The applicant came to be appointed into the IAS for the select list 2012 on 27.03.2015. He was supplied the copy of minutes of Review Selection Committee dated 14.07.2014 and thereafter he approached this Tribunal.5 OA No.322/2016
2.4 It is the case of the applicant that the Review Selection Committee has not considered his upgraded ACRs and, therefore, they should be directed to again reconsider his upgraded ACRs and recommend his promotion for the panel year 2010 or 2011 instead of his actual selection for the panel year 2012. Thus, in effect the applicant is seeking antedating of his promotion from the State Civil Service to that of IAS.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA.
3.1 The respondent No.2, in their affidavit, have stated that for the period/year for which the ACRs were Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso upgraded by the State Government after the Selection Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Committee meeting held on 09.07.2012, the Review Selection Committee reassessed such ACRs and in respect of the period/year for which there was no material change (ACRs were not upgraded by the State Government), the Review Selection Committee decided to adopt the grading given by the Selection Committee which met on 09.07.2012. On this basis, the Review Selection Committee overall assessed Shri S.Y. Patil 6 OA No.322/2016 as 'Good' for both of the select lists. On the basis of this assessment, the name of Shri S.Y. Patil was not recommended for inclusion in any of the select lists of 2010 and 2011 by the Review Selection Committee. The recommendations of the Review Selection Committee were approved by the commission on 08.12.2014.
3.2 It has been further submitted that the Review Selection Committee decided in terms of the internal guidelines of the commission to adopt the year-wise grading given by the Selection Committee meeting held on 09.07.2012 only for that period for which there was no material change in the ACRs of Shri S.Y. Patil.
Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso However, the applicant has wrongly inferred from this Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 decision of the Review Selection Committee that the Review Selection Committee did not take into account his upgraded ACRs for the period 24.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 and 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005 (2004-2005), 01.04.2005 to 24.07.2005 (2005-2006) and 01.08.2008 to 31.03.2009 (2008-2009) and adopted the earlier gradings for these period also.7 OA No.322/2016
3.3 It has been submitted that the Review Selection Committee considered the available ACRs of Shri S.Y. Patil for five years upto the year 2009-2010 for the select list of 2010 and upto the year 2010-
2011 for the select list of 2011 and re-examined the assessment of the years in respect of which there was a material change in the ACRs after the Selection Committee meeting held on 09.07.2012. However, the Review Selection Committee overall assessed the applicant as 'Good' for both of the select lists. On the basis of this assessment, the Review Selection Committee did not recommend his name for inclusion in any of the select lists of 2010 and 2011 for promotion Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso to the IAS of Maharashtra Cadre.
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 3.4 Regarding the contention of the applicant that it was not open for the review selection committee to grade him as 'Good' when his ACRs were upgraded as 'Outstanding'/'Very Good', it has been submitted that the assessment of officers under consideration for promotion is the exclusive domain of the selection committee. It is not mandatory for the committee to adopt the grading given by the State Government in the 8 OA No.322/2016 ACR of an officer.
3.5 It has been submitted that the Selection Committee meting held on 18.02.2015 considered the name of the applicant for preparation of the select list of 2012 for promotion to the IAS of Maharashtra cadre.
His available ACRs for five years upto the year 2011- 12 (2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12) were considered for the select list of 2012, whereas the available ACRs for five years upto the year 2009- 2010 (2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009) were considered for the select lists of 2010 and the available ACRs for five years upto the year 2010-11(2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso 2010-2011) were considered for the select list of 2011. Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 The assessment matrix for the select list of 2012 was not same as the assessment matrices for the select lists of 2010 and 2011. For the select list of 2012, the gradings for four (4) years viz. 2005-2006, 2007- 2008, 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 were adopted from the assessment matrix prepared for preparation of select list of 2011 and the assessment for the fifth year viz 2011-2012 was made on the basis of ACR of 2011-2012 9 OA No.322/2016 which was not a part of the assessment matrix for the select list of 2011. This resulted in variation in the overall assessment for the select list of 2012 as compared to overall assessment for the select lists of 2010 and 2011. As such, the conclusion drawn by the applicant that the Selection Committee meeting held on 18.02.2015 for select list of 2012 had given weightage to his upgraded ACRs, whereas the Review Selection Committee meeting held on 14.07.2014 in respect of select lists of 2010 and 2011 had not given weightage to his upgraded ACRs is not true as the conclusion has wrongly been drawn by comparing different assessment matrices for the respective select lists. Therefore, Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso the contention of the applicant in this regard is Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 devoid of any merit.
3.6 The respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) UPSC Vs. K. Rajaiah & Others, (2005) 10 SCC 15, decision dated 03.05.2005
(ii) UPSC Vs. H.L. Dev & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1069, decision dated 22.03.1988.
(iii) Ramanand Prasad Singh & Another Vs. Union of India & Others, (1996) SCC(4) 64, decision dated 27.03.1996.
(iv) Nutan Arvind Vs. Union of India and Another, (1996) 2 SCC 488, 10 OA No.322/2016 decision dated 15.01.1996.
(v) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others, AIR 1990 SC 434, decision dated 06.12.1989.
(vi) Durga Devi and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decision dated 11.04.1997.
(vii) M.V. Thimmaiah & Others Vs. UPSC and Others, Appeal (Civil) No.5883-5891/2007, decision dated 13.12.2007
(viii) R.S. Dass etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, 1987 AIR 593, decision dated 11.12.1986.
4. The respondent No.3 has also filed the reply to the OA denying the contentions raised by the applicant. It has been submitted that the proposal alongwith the all required certificates and documents was forwarded to UPSC against 4 vacancies for the select list of 2010 and 7 vacancies for the select list of 2011. The Selection Committee meeting was held on 09.07.2012 to prepare select lists of 2010 and 2011 for promotion of Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 SCS officers to the IAS of Maharashtra Cadre against 04 and 07 vacancies respectively. In the said meting the names of Shri S.Y. Patil and Shri S.G. Gautam were considered but their names were not recommended by the Selection Committee for inclusion in any of the select lists based on overall assessment of their service records and the Annual Confidential Reports. The said select lists have been acted upon vide Notification dated 17.01.2013 issued by Department of Personnel and 11 OA No.322/2016 Training.
4.1 It has been submitted that the Review Selection Committee met on 14.07.2014 for reconsideration of the case of applicant for inclusion in the select list 2010 and 2011 alongwith case of one more officer, Shri S.G. Gautam. The Review Selection Committee made a observation that "the Review Selection Committee examined the records of these officers upto the year 2009-2010 and on an overall assessment of their service record, they were assessed." The applicant has been granted overall relative assessment as 'Good' for the preparation of select list 2010 and 2011.
Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso 4.2 It has been submitted that after the selection Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 committee meeting was held on 09.07.2012, Shri S.Y. Patil represented for upgradation of his ACRs for the period of 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 24.07.2005. On consideration of his representation by obtaining opinion of Reviewing and Reporting Officer, the State Government upgraded his ACRs for these periods from B+ to A+, vide Government order dated 15.03.2013. In the meanwhile the ACRs of Shri S.Y. 12 OA No.322/2016 Patil for the period of 24.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 and 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 (2008-2009) have also been upgraded from 'Very Good' to 'Outstanding' by the State Government, vide orders dated 11.04.2014. The State Government had sent the proposal for reconsideration of the case of Shri S.Y. Patil for the select list of 2010 and 2011 in the light of his upgraded ACRs. The Review Selection Committee met on 14.07.2014 for reconsideration the case of Shri S.Y. Patil for inclusion in the select list for 2010 and 2011 along case of one more officer Shri S.G. Gautam. Shri S.Y. Patil and Shri S.G. Gautam have been granted overall relative assessment as 'Good' for preparation of select Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso list of 2010 and 2011. The Review Selection Committee Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 decided in respect of these officers where there is no material change in their ACRs to ignore the upgradation of the ACRs on the ground that the upgradation was done after the meeting of the original Selection Committee.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submission made in the OA. It has been submitted that the respondents have failed to produce any material before this Tribunal or even to justify as to 13 OA No.322/2016 why the overall assessment of 'Good' was given to the applicant for both the years 2010 and 2011 by the Review Selection Committee even after upgradation of his ACRs.
5.1 It has been submitted that when the ACRs of the applicant were upgraded to 'very Good' and 'Outstanding', the Review Selection Committee continued with the overall assessment of 'Good' as was awarded by the earlier Selection Committee, despite there being material change in the ACRs of the applicant.
5.2 The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Vs. K. Rajaiah and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 15.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Shirke on the basis of pleadings has vehemently argued that when the State Government has upgraded the ACRs of the applicant from 'Good' to 'Very Good' and to 'Outstanding', the Review Selection Committee could not have assessed him as 'Good' and denied him for selection for the panel years 2010- 2011. He, therefore, submitted that UPSC should be 14 OA No.322/2016 directed to reconsider the decision of the Review Selection Committee and promotion of the applicant should be antedated to the panel years 2010 and 2011 with all consequential benefits. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and Others (supra). He has also placed reliance on the DoPT OM dated 09.05.2014 regarding 'Procedure to be observed by Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs)- Assessment of entries and gradings in ACRs/APARs- reg.'.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents Dr. Joshi and Dr. Masurkar have vehemently argued that UPSC was perfectly justified in making their own assessment on Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso the basis of entries in the APARs and not bound by the Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 recommendation of the State Government or the gradings granted by the State Government.
8. Dr. Joshi submitted that the UPSC has minutely considered each and every column of the ACRs of the applicant and after thorough consideration have found that there is no material change in the ACRs and, therefore, they arrived at their own assessment and assessed the applicant as 'Good'. Therefore, this 15 OA No.322/2016 Tribunal cannot substitute its own decision for the decision of the review selection committee. He has placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in para No.3.6 above.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the pleadings and documents filed on record.
10. We find that the Review Selection Committee in its meeting held on 14.07.2014 has considered the ACRs and the service record of the applicant. The upgradation of the ACRs which was done by the State Government was also considered. However, the Review Selection Committee was of the view that there is no Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso material change and, therefore, they decided to adopt Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the grading of the ACR as 'good' only as was given by the original Selection Committee.
11. Regarding the reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant on the DoPT OM dated 09.05.2014, we find that the same was in respect of the Departmental Promotion Committees and not applicable to the Selection Committee of the UPSC.
16 OA No.322/2016
12. Regarding the reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Vs. K. Rajaiah (supra), we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment has held as under:-
"9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the first respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, AIR 1992 SC 1806. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed:
"Even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass V. Union of India, 1986 Supp SCC 617."Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 In the next paragraph, the learned Judges indicated as to what is expected of the Selection Committee, in the following words:
"We may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The ''fairness'' or ''fair procedure'' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary."
That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so- called down gradation of the first respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term ''downgradation'' is an inappropriate 17 OA No.322/2016 expression. The power to classify as ''outstanding'', ''very good'', ''good'' and ''unfit'' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-
94. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though, it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision."
[Emphasis supplied]
13. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases have held that the Selection Committee is not bound by the grading given by the State Government and they can make their own assessment Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 on the basis of the entries in the ACRs and come to a different conclusion regarding the grading of an officer.
13.1 In the case of UPSC vs. H.L. Deve and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"The jurisdiction to make the selection is vested in the selection committee. How to categorise in the light of the relevant records and what norms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the functions of the selection committee."18 OA No.322/2016
13.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanand Prasad Singh (supra) has held as under:
"The committee applies its mind to the service records and makes its own assessment of the service records of the candidates marking them as outstanding, very good, good and so on. The selection committee does not necessarily adopt the same grading which is given by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer in respect of each of the candidates."
13.3 In the case of Nutan Arvind Vs. Union of India and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"When a high level committee had consider the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority."
13.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others V. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors (supra) has held as under:
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' "It is needless to emphasize that it is not the function of the Court to Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a 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 mala fides affecting the selection etc."
13.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Devi and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others (supra) has held as under:19 OA No.322/2016
"In the instant case, as would be seen from the perusal of the impugned order, the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinizing the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority over the selection committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating 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 observation of this Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra) are squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. 13.6 In the case of M.V. Thimmaiah and Others Vs. UPSC and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Normally, 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 to examine the recommendations of the selection committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the selection committee only and courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso and record its opinion."
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 13.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Das etc. Vs. Union of India and Others (supra) has held as under:
"In order to judge the merit, the regulations provide for categorization of eligible members of the State Civil Service on the basis of their service records which are scrutinized by the committee consisting of high ranking officers of the State Government and the Central Government................ It is true that where merit is the sole basis for promotion, the power of selection becomes wide and liable to be abused with less difficulty, but that does not justify presumption regarding arbitrary exercise of power. The machinery designed for preparation of select list under the regulations for promotion to All India Service, ensures objective and impartial selection. The selection committee is 20 OA No.322/2016 constituted by high ranking responsible officers presided over by Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission. There is no reason to hold that they would not act in fair and impartial manner in making selection."
14. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Review Selection Committee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Original Application is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A)
ma.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0