Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Avtar Singh Bali vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 August, 2017
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No.159/2007, MP Nos.8/2012 & 197/2007
Date of order: 11.08.2017
Avtar Singh Bali
v.
Union of India and Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. C M Koul, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC vice
Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI for R-1 Mr. Babu Ram Chandan, CGSC For R-2.
Mr. W S Nargal, Sr. AAG for R-4 to 6.
i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Press/Media
ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Digest/Journal
Per-Alok Aradhe,J:-
In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jammu by which the original application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition concisely stated are that a meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 13th and 14th of September, 2000 to prepare the select list for induction into Indian Police Service for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998, 1999 and 2000. For the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the petitioner was not considered by the Selection Committee as he was not in the zone of SWP No.159/2007 Page 1 of 6 2 consideration. The aforesaid Selection Committee also prepared the select list for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000 consisting of 10, 5 and 4 officers, respectively. For the aforesaid years, the case of the petitioner was considered and was assessed by the Selection Committee in each year as 'good'. However, on the basis of the overall relative assessment for all three years, the name of the petitioner could not be included in the select list as sufficient number of officers with higher grading were available in each of these years in terms of provisions of Promotion Regulations. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was indisputably senior to respondents 7 to 15 up to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police. However, the respondents 7 to 15 were inducted in Indian Police Service vide notification dated 09.03.2001, whereas the petitioner was inducted in Indian Police Service on 10.01.2002.
3. The petitioner after his supersession sent a representation and thereafter filed a writ petition which was transmitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was registered as Original Application. The Tribunal by an order dated 21.10.2005 dismissed the original application preferred by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that a high level committee has considered the respective merits of the candidates and has assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion and the Tribunal SWP No.159/2007 Page 2 of 6 3 cannot sit in assessment over the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee as an appellate authority. It was, further, held that over all relative assessment of all the candidates was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee and since the candidates with superior merit were available, therefore, they were given precedence over the petitioner in the matter of induction in Indian Police Service. Accordingly, the original application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that APRs of the petitioner have not been correctly appreciated by the Selection Committee and the conclusion arrived at by the Selection Committee that the petitioner was graded 'good' for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the APRs which the petitioner has obtained under the Right To Information Act and has stated that from 1997-98 onwards till the year 2000-01, the petitioner has been graded 'very good' and the respondents have failed to show any material on record to justify the supersession of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has submitted that the Selection Committee had adopted a transparent and objective SWP No.159/2007 Page 3 of 6 4 process and on the basis of overall assessment of service of the officers falling within the zone of consideration had promoted respondents 7 to 15. It is further pointed out that the respondents had produced the record before the Tribunal including the minutes of the meeting held on 13th&14th of September, 2000 along with assessment report of various officers falling in the zone of consideration for the selection list for different years and on the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that more meritorious candidates were recommended for induction into Indian Police Service. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not call for any interference.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of Rule 5(4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, it is evident that the Selection Committee shall classify all the eligible officers as outstanding, very good, good or unfit as the case may be on overall relative assessment of their service record. The Committee has gone through the service record of all the eligible candidates and on the basis of overall assessment of the service record has considered the case of the petitioner as well as other candidates and classified the officers in various SWP No.159/2007 Page 4 of 6 5 categories such as outstanding, very good or good. It is pertinent to mention here that APRs cannot be said to be the sole criteria for assessment of overall relative merit of the candidate. The Selection Committee on the basis of overall assessment of service records of respondents 7 to 15 has found that they are more meritorious that the petitioner and therefore made the recommendations for their induction in Indian Police Service. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not leveled any allegation of mala fide or bias against the members of the Selection Committee. The suitability of a candidate for promotion is to be assessed by the Selection Committee. It is trite law that this Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Selection Committee and cannot substitute its opinion. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material on record to interfere with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record has held that the Selection Committee has evaluated the record of all the officers in a transparent and objective manner and has made the recommendations accordingly. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of record warranting SWP No.159/2007 Page 5 of 6 6 interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
7. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed along with connected MPs.
( Sanjeev Kumar ) ( Alok Aradhe )
Judge Judge
Jammu
11.08.2017
Raj Kumar
SWP No.159/2007 Page 6 of 6