Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Vinod Kumar Ips vs M/O Home Affairs on 28 August, 2025
1- O.A. No. 1376/2021
REPORTABLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/1376/2021
Pronounced on: 28.08.2025
Reserved on: 31.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Vinod Kumar, IPS S/O Sh Jal Singh, Aged 40 years, Working as Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, Haryana, R/O Fiat No. 138, J Block,
GH-2. Shikhar Apartments, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula,
Haryana-134100. "Group-A"
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rohit Seth
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001, through its Secretary.
2. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary. -110001.
3. The Selection Committee for appointment by promotion to the IPS,
HPS Cadre, through its Chairman, Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 110001.
4. State of Haryana through its Principal Secretary, Government of
Haryana, Department of Home Affairs, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector-
9, Chandigarh.
5. Rajesh Kalia, IPS, R/O House No.630, Sector 6-A, Panchkula,
Haryana-134108. (Ex parte vide order dated 17.11.2022)
6. Raj Kumar, IPS, S.P, CID, R/O Kothi No.7, Police Line, Sector 30,
Faridabad, Haryana-121003. (Ex parte vide order dated
17.11.2022)
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms. Kanishka
Maheshwari and Mr. Shivam Garg for R-1
Mr. B.B. Sharma for R-2
Mr. S.K. Vashisht, for R-3 and 4
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA
2- O.A. No. 1376/2021
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash proceedings of the Selection Committee for Vacancy Year and Select List for induction to IPS for years 2017, 2018 and 2019 dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure A-1) to the extent it relates to applicant and private respondents,, being illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) To quash MHA notification No.F.No.1-14011/14/2020-IPS I (E)(1) dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure A-2 Colly) Notification No. F.No.1-14011/14/2020-IPS I (E)(II) dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure A-2 Colly) issued by the respondent No.1 to the extent the name of the applicant has not been included therein for induction to IPS qua vacancy and Select List of year 2017 while respondents No.5 and 6 have been placed in year 2017 despite being juniors, while applicant has been placed in select list of IPS for year 2018.
(iii) To direct the respondent No.4 to issue No Report Certificates for the ACR's of applicant for year 2012-13 and 2014-15 and forward the record of applicant and private respondents to the respondent No.2, who should be directed to convene the review Selection Committee meeting for induction to IPS for years 2017 and 2018 as per rules, law and instructions with rectified corrected record and further directions to the respondents No.1 Digitally and 3 to issue fresh notification qua the applicant and private signed by MAMTA WADHWA 3- O.A. No. 1376/2021 respondents in place of notifications dated 19.07.2021 while reflecting the name of the applicant at its appropriate place based upon his placement in gradation list as on 01.01.2017 i.e. immediately below Sh. Sumit Kumar the immediate senior of applicant and above Sh. Rajesh Kalia the immediate junior of applicant and slide Sh. Rajesh Kalia against the 9 of the two vacancies at slot 8 and 9 for year 2017 itself while further sliding Sh Raj Kumar below Sh Rajesh Kalia in Vacancy Year 2017 itself, if vacancies are taken as 9 or against vacancy on which the applicant has been approved for year 2018 and promote the applicant to IPS from due date when his colleagues including juniors have been so promoted with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay and allowances etc.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed Probationer Deputy Superintendent of Police, under Haryana Police Services in Haryana Police on 06.01.2004, private respondent No.5 was appointed as such on 06.01.2004 itself and private respondent No.6 was appointed as such on 28.12.2006. The applicant and respondent no. 5 were confirmed on 07.01.2006, while respondent no.6 was confirmed on 28.12.2008. Thereafter, the applicant was placed in the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commandant vide order dated 22.07.2014. The name of applicant in the aforesaid order was at Serial No.9 while name of respondent No.5 was at Serial No.10 therein.
3. The next channel of promotion from Punjab Police Service is to Indian Police Service, which is governed by Indian Police Service, (Recruitment) Rules 1954 read with Indian Police Service (Appointment Digitally by promotion) Regulations, 1955. The Central Government in exercise of signed by MAMTA WADHWA 4- O.A. No. 1376/2021 power conferred in Rule 8(1) of The Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, framed Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 for promotion to the posts of Indian Police Service. The Final Seniority List of the State Police Service cadre officers was finalized by the State Government on 01.01.2017, wherein the applicant, respondents No.5 and 6 stand at Sr. No. 22, 23 and 26 respectively (Annexure A-6). There were 9 vacancies for vacancy year 2017 and 1 vacancy each for the years 2018 and 2019. The applicant stood at Sr. No. 10 in the proposed list and the name of Sh. Rajesh Kalia and Sh. Raj Kumar at serial No.11 and 12 of the list of officers, who fall under the zone of consideration for induction to IPS. The vigilance certificates were granted to 23 out of 27 against 9 total vacancies for vacancy years 2017 and 2018. The first 3 officers named in the list were having some or the other legal impediment for making it and their Vigilance was also not cleared due to that and one of whom namely Nirapjit Singh, who was facing criminal trial died in May 2020.
4. The respondent no. 4 forwarded the list of officers, including the name of applicant, for consideration for induction of officers of SPS to IPS, by the Selection Committee of Respondent no. 2 as per Regulations, whereupon the meeting of the Selection Committee was held by UPSC, Delhi on 22.03.2021 to prepare the year wise select lists for years 2017, 2018 and 2019 of such members of the HPS, who were suitable for promotion to the IPS against the vacancies confirmed by the Government for these years. The name of the applicant was considered along with other officers for induction to IPS against the vacancy year 2017 and 2018, while the names of his juniors i.e. private respondents Digitally were considered for vacancy year 2017. The assessment of the applicant signed by MAMTA WADHWA 5- O.A. No. 1376/2021 was done to be 'Good' while the assessment of his juniors namely Sh. Rajesh Kalia and Sh. Raj Kumar for the same vacancy year 2017 was done as „Very Good‟. The name of applicant came to be at serial no. 10 and the officers at serial no.1 and 2 were declared unfit, while the officer at serial no.3, who was facing criminal charges in FIR had died on 15.05.2020 stood approved though the other factors were there including the non grant of vigilance clearance. For the Select List of 2018, the name of applicant was approved.
5. The Selection Committee of the Government of Haryana held its meeting and approved the Select Lists for the respective years and further the Select List for year 2017 (9 Vacancies), 2018 (1) Vacancy) and 2019 (1 Vacancy) as approved by the UPSC on 16.07.2021 was notified vide MHA notification dated 19.07.2021 under provision of sub regulation (3) of regulation 7 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The UPSC approved 9 officers for Select List 2017 including one Sh. Naripjit Singh, whose name was included provisionally subject to grant of Integrity Certificate by State Government and it approved two officers for Select List of year 2018 namely Sh. Naripjit Singh and the applicant. The said Sh. Naripjit Singh was facing criminal proceedings during pendency of which, he died as on 15.05.2020.
6. Further the Government of India vide Notification dated 19.07.2021 under sub rule 1 of rule 9 of Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with sub regulation (1) of regulation 9 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) regulation, 1955 appointed 8 HPS Officers to the IPS against vacancy year 2017, which Digitally included the name of applicant‟s juniors i.e. respondents no. 5 and 6. signed by MAMTA WADHWA 6- O.A. No. 1376/2021 The applicant was appointed against the vacancy year 2018. Consequently the juniors of applicant stood appointed in the IPS service.
7. Upon information sought under the RTI Act, the applicant came to know that his name was relegated from the Select List for induction into IPS for the year 2017 and it transpired that in the light of grading of „Good‟ in applicant‟s ACRs for the year 2012-13 and 2014-15, the applicant has not been given bench mark of „Very Good‟ and declared „Fit‟ for induction to IPS.
8. The contention of the applicant is that the ACR‟s grading of „Good‟ for the years 2012-13 and 2014-15 were time barred, incomplete (not reviewed or confirmed) and these were not communicated to the applicant despite being below the bench mark of „Very Good‟, yet these have been considered by the Selection Committee resulting into relegation of his name from the Select List for induction into IPS for the year 2017, which is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention that the grading below the bench mark as also grading which show fall in the standard are required to be communicated and if such gradings are not communicated, the same should be ignored,, the applicant has placed reliance upon a number of judgments including Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR SCC 2513, Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Others, 2009(16) SCC 146, U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. P.C. Jain, 1996 (33) ATC 217, Dr. Binoy Gupta Vs. Union of India, 2002 (3) ATJ 7, Udai Krishna v. UOI, (1996) 33 ATC 802; UOI v. S.M. Verma, SLP (C) No. 2713/02, dated 28.1.2002 and 5.4.2002. UOI v. B.L. Shrivastava, C.W.P No. 715/01, dated. 02.02.2001 (Delhi High Court), Havildar S. Ram v. Chief of Army Staff, CW 4667/96, Digitally decided on 19.7.1999 (Delhi High Court) 84 (2000) DLT 687, Dr. J.P. signed by MAMTA WADHWA 7- O.A. No. 1376/2021 Shrivastava v. UOI, 2003 (2) ATJ 392. V.S. Arora v. UOI and Ors., 2002(2) ATJ 432. R.N. Pandey v. UOI and Ors., 2003(3) ATJ 648 and decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal dated 20.11.2003 in O.A. 215/02 (Nand Lal Parihar v. UOI and Ors.), Dr. J.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Others, ATJ 2003 (3).
9. The respondent no. 1 filed reply stating therein the State Government, being the sole custodian of service records of State Police Officers, is required to furnish a proposal to convene a meeting of the Selection Committee/ Review Committee, along with a list of eligible State Police Service officers and their service records, integrity certificates etc. direct to the Union Public Service Commission for consideration of eligible State Police Service Officers for their inclusion in the Select List for their subsequent appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service. The Commission scrutinizes the said proposal / records and fixes the meeting of the Selection Committee / Review Committee. The Central Government nominates its nominees for the Selection Committee as and when the Commission fixes the meeting. The list prepared by the Selection Committee /Review Committee is finally approved by the Union Public Service Commission and forms the Select List. Finally and specifically, in terms of the Regulation 9(1) of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, appointment to the IPS of such members of the State Police Service, who are included unconditionally in the Select List approved by the UPSC is made by the Central Government, in the order in which their names appear in the Select List in force. The UPSC, MHA and the State government have their specific role in preparation of the Select List for appointment by Digitally promotion.
signed by MAMTA WADHWA 8- O.A. No. 1376/2021
10. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 (i.e. the UPSC and the Selection Committee) have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations, 1955 the Selection Committee duly classifies the eligible State Police Service officers included in the zone of consideration as 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', Good' or 'Unfit', as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records. Thereafter, as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the said Regulations, 1955, the Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required number of names first from the officers finally classified as 'Outstanding', then from amongst those similarly classified as Very Good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the order of names within each category is maintained in the order of their respective inter-se seniority in the State Police Service. There is no concept of Bench-mark' or assessment as Fit' or 'Unfit' in the case of induction of State Police Officers to All India Service. Further, an officer categorised overall as 'Good' may also be included in the Select List, depending upon the number of vacancies determined, position of officer in the seniority in the State Police Service and comparative overall assessment of other officers in the zone of consideration. As far as, induction of State Service officers to the All India Services is concerned, a grading of 'Good' is not considered as adverse. The Selection Committee applies its own mind while assessing the ACRS/APARS of the officers and is not merely guided by the grading given by the Reporting/Reviewing authority as the grading should be commensurate to the gradings/comments given Digitally against the various attributes/parameters reflected in the ACRS/APARS. signed by MAMTA WADHWA 9- O.A. No. 1376/2021 For the Select List of 2017, the Selection Committee went through the service records of the officers for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17. For the Select List of 2018, the Selection Committee went through the service records for the year 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. The Applicant was categorized overall as 'Good' and 'Very Good' for the Select Lists of 2017 and 2018 respectively. The applicant was not included in the Select List of 2017 as officers with better grading were available and also due to statutory limit on the size of the Select List, whereas he was included in the Select List of 2018.
11. With regard to contention of the applicant about un- communicated ACRs for the year 2012-13 and 2014-15 is concerned, the respondents no. 2 and 3 stated that writing and maintenance of ACR, disclosure of ACRs, communication of adverse remarks, disposal of representations, the decision regarding declaration of any ACR as complete or incomplete and issuing of 'No Report Certificate' in lieu of an incomplete ACR etc. comes under the exclusive domain of the State Government.
12. The respondent no. 4 filed written statement opposing the claim of the applicant and stated therein that there are no flaws in the documentation sent by the State Government to the UPSC as has been alleged by the applicant, rather the correct statement of facts as well as certificates were furnished by the State Government to the Commission. However, the record of ACRS of the applicant, for the year from 2010- 11 to 2017-18 were sent to the Commission, which were taken into account by the Selection Committee. In the ACRs for the year 2012-13 and 2014-15, the applicant was graded as „Good‟ and the same cannot Digitally be considered as 'adverse remarks in his ACR. Therefore, the said signed by MAMTA WADHWA 10- O.A. No. 1376/2021 remarks were not required to be communicated to the applicant in terms of the instructions dated 01.05.1975, 16.08.1983 and 06.06.1989. The cases of the other officers namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sheoran, Sh. Desh Bandhu, Sh. Rajeev Deswal etc. are different from the case of applicant so far as forwarding of 'no report certificate' in their case are concerned, as the ACR in their cases might not written or available for the said period. On the other hand the ACR of the applicant was duly recorded and he was graded as 'Good' in the ACR for the year 2012-13. So far as, the cases of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, HPS and Sh. Suresh Kumar, HPS are concerned, adverse remarks were recorded in their ACRs, hence, the same were conveyed to them. The adverse remarks in case of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, HPS were expunged and his ACR was upgraded to 'Good', which itself shows that the grading given in ACR as 'Good' cannot be stated as adverse and the same need not to be conveyed as per the instructions dated 01.05.1975, 16.08.1983 and 06.06.1989. Further, the time schedule for writing/review and acceptance of ACRs as mentioned in the instructions dated 07.08.1997 and 02.07.1998 is advisory in nature. It is submitted that as per the said instructions, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer, who fail to comply with instructions regarding ACR, however, the ACRs recorded beyond the time schedule cannot be vitiated on this account. Further, it is not mentioned in the instruction dated 01.11.1968 that the ACR of the Superintendent of Police cannot be recorded by the superior officer in the rank of Additional DGP being the Reporting Officer. Even the ACRs for the Year 2014-15 of the applicant was taken into consideration by the Commission, while he was categorised as 'Very Digitally Good' for the Select List-2018 from which he was appointed to IPS. signed by MAMTA WADHWA 11- O.A. No. 1376/2021 Further, the validity of the Select List of 2017 has already been expired, therefore, no case is made out for promotion/induction of applicant into IPS at this stage. In support of the contention that the Selection Committee is empowered to make its own assessment and thus function solely belongs to the Selection Committee and cannot be reviewed in Court, unless there is a case of malafide or arbitrariness, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10854/2014).
13. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.202 proceeded ex parte against respondents no. 5 and 6.
14. The applicant filed separate rejoinders to the replies filed by Respondent no. 1, Respondents No. 2, 3 and Respondent No. 4, reiterating his contentions raised in the O.A. that once the adverse remarks was never conveyed to the applicant as per the State Government's instructions and secondly the remarks and grading given by the reporting and reviewing officer in the ACR of year 2012-2013 was beyond the acceptable time limit for writing of ACR and confirmation thereof, the same was liable to be ignored and NRC issued.
15. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submission of both the sides. For better understanding of the rival contentions of both side, and adjudication of the issued involved herein, the relevant Rules and Regulations, governing the induction of SPS officers to IPS cadre, are pertinent to mention here.
16. The appointments from the State Police Service to Indian Police Digitally Service are governed by the provisions of the Indian Police Service signed by MAMTA WADHWA 12- O.A. No. 1376/2021 (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. The Rule 4 of the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 stipulates the method of recruitment of the service, which is reproduced hereunder under:-
"4. Method of recruitment of the Service:-
4(1) Recruitment to the Service after the commencement of these rules, shall be by the following methods, namely:- 4(1)(a) By a competitive examination;
4(1)(aa) Omitted.
4(1)(b) By promotion of a substantive member of a State Civil Service:
4(2) Subject to the provisions of these rules,
(a) the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling up any particular vacancy or vacancies as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment, shall be determined by the Central government in consultation with the Commission and the State Government concerned.
(b) The number of persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined on each occasion by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned.
17. The Rule 9 (1) of Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 provides the procedure of recruitment by promotion, which read as under:-
9. Recruitment by promotion (1) The Central Government may, on the recommendations of the State Government concerned and in consultation with the Commission recruit to the Service persons by promotion from amongst the [substantive] members of a State Civil Service in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Governments and the Commission, from time to time, make.
Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA 13- O.A. No. 1376/2021
18. In pursuance of Rule 9(1) of the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments and the UPSC, made The Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, providing the detailed procedure for appointment from the State Police Service (SPS) to Indian Police Service (IPS). The relevant regulations are extracted hereunder:-
5. PREPARATION OF A LIST OF SUITABLE OFFICERS:-
5 (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of members of the State Police Service to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State government concerned, and shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The date and venue of the meeting of the Committee to make the selection shall be determined by the Commission;
Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held, and no list for the year in question shall be prepared when,
(a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the state Police Service under rule 9 of the recruitment rules; or
(b) the Central Government in consultation with the State Government decides that no recruitment shall be made during the year to the substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the State Police Service under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules.
Provided further that where no meeting of the Committee could be held during a year for any reason other than that provided for in the first proviso as and when the Digitally signed by Committee meets again, the Select List shall be prepared MAMTA WADHWA 14- O.A. No. 1376/2021 separately for each year during which the Committee could not meet as on the 31 December of each year.
5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Service in the order of a seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation(1):
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of eligible officers is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible officers.
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in the filed of consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded. Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Police Service unless, on the first day of January of the year (for which the select list is prepared] he is substantive in the State Police Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government.
Provided also that in respect of any released Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers appointed to the State Police Service, eight years of continuous service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service, subject to the condition that such officers shall be eligible for consideration if they have completed not less than four years of actual continuous service, on the first day of the January of the year (for which the select list is prepared], in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts Digitally signed by declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. MAMTA WADHWA 15- O.A. No. 1376/2021 Explanation:- The powers of the State Government under the third proviso to this sub-regulation shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Police Service of a constituent State, by the Government of that State.
5(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years (amended to 56 years vide Notification no. 14015/30/2015-AIS-I B dated 17.03.2015 by the Govt. of India) on the first day of January of the year (for which the select list is prepared). 5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as „Outstanding‟, „Very Good‟, „Good‟, or „Unfit‟, as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their Service records.
19. From the reading of these Rules and Regulations, it is evident that number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a particular select list for promotion from SPS to IPS is determined by the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) only in consultation with the State Government. The State Government forwards the proposal to the UPSC along with seniority list, eligibility list (maximum up to three time of the number of vacancies) of the State Police Service officers, along with integrity certificate in complete dossiers. After receipt of the proposal along with relevant documents, the UPSC examine the proposal for the purpose of preparation of Select List for promotion of SPS officers to IPS.
20. The Selection Committee of the UPSC in accordance with the prescribed procedure in the rules and regulations classifies the eligibility of State Police Officers, who are under the zone of consideration as „Outstanding‟, „Very Good‟, „Good‟ and „Unfit‟, on the basis of over-all relative assessment prepared on the basis of service records. The Digitally signed by MAMTA Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required number of WADHWA 16- O.A. No. 1376/2021 names first from the officers classified as „Outstanding‟, then from amongst those similarly classified as „Very Good‟ and then from amongst those similarly classified as „Good‟.
21. We find that in terms of the guidelines of the UPSC, the ACRs of the eligible officers are the basic inputs on the basis of which eligible officers are categories as „Outstanding‟, „Very Good‟, „Good‟ and „Unfit‟ in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations, 1955. As per the procedure, the Selection Committee is not guided merely by the overall grading recorded in the ACRs, but makes its own assessment on the basis of in-depth examination of service records of eligible offices, deliberating on the quality of officers on the basis of performance reflected under various columns recorded by the concerned Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer/Accepting Authority and thereafter on the basis thereof, the Committee arrives at a conclusion to classification to be assigned to each eligible officer. The Selection Committee apart from grading in ACR also takes into account appreciation for meritorious service of the concerned officers. We find that a complete procedure has been laid down in the rules and regulations to be followed by the Selection Committee.
22. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the State Government has very limited role in the process of induction of SPS officers to Indian Police Service, though no process of induction from SPS to IPS can be started without there being any proposal of the suitable officers from the concerned State. The UPSC, on the basis of observations of State Government and Central Government takes the final decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in Digitally terms of regulation 7 of Regulations 1955. Thereafter, the signed by MAMTA WADHWA 17- O.A. No. 1376/2021 appointments to the IPS are made from the select List by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
23. The primary issue for adjudication is that whether the good grading given to the applicant in ACR for the period 2012-13 can be termed as adverse grading with respect to applicant‟s promotion from SPS to IPS for the Select List 2017. It is an admitted position that for induction of State Police Officers to IPS for the Select Year 2017, the record of 2012-13 to 2016-17 was taken into consideration. In these five years ACRs, the applicant was graded as „Very Good‟ for three years and „Good‟ for two years i.e. 2012-13 and 2014-15. On the basis of these five ACRs, he was overall assessed as „Good‟ by the Selection Committee, but could not make it to the Select List of 2017 as the other officers, though junior (Respondents No. 4 and 5), with better overall assessment were available in the consideration zone. The plea of the applicant is that the grading „Good‟ in his ACRs for the year 2012-13 was below the bench mark and therefore these had to be communicated to the applicant and since it had not been communicated, the same has to be ignored and treated as „No Report‟.
24. We have thoroughly gone through the Regulations, 1955 and material available on records. We do not find any provision therein regulating that State Police Officer with „Good‟ grading would not be considered for promotion. The Selection Committee considered all the candidates, who were under the consideration zone, and make an assessment on the basis of their service records of preceding five years and thereby placed them in the category of „Outstanding‟, Very Good‟, Good‟ and „Unfit‟. The applicant on the basis of his five years grading of Digitally signed by MAMTA ACRs, was assessed as „Good‟ by the Selection Committee for the Select WADHWA 18- O.A. No. 1376/2021 List of 2017. Further, there is no provision in the said Regulations that the officer assessed as „Good‟ by the Selection Committee cannot make it to the Select List. However, since the officers with better assessment as „Outstanding‟ and „Very Good‟ were available in the consideration zone, the applicant‟s name was not included in the Select List 2017 due to statutory limit on the size of Select List. Had there not been the other officers with better assessment available in the consideration zone, the applicant‟s name could have been included in the Select List of 2017 even with his two „Good‟ gradings and overall assessment as „Good‟. Any Officer with over-all assessment as „Very Good‟ may not find a place in the Select List, if the sufficient number of officers with „Outstanding‟ assessment are available in the consideration zone to fill up the vacancies of that particular year. Thus, we cannot accept the plea of the applicant that the grading of „Good‟ in his two ACRs for the years 2012- 13 and 2014-15 are below bench mark, since these two good grading ACRs did not deprive him from his opportunity of fair consideration for promotion for the Select List 2017. From the perusal of the assessment table, we found that out of applicant‟s two ACRs for the years 2012-13 and 2014-15, one ACR for the year 2014-15 was considered by the Selection Committee for the Select List 2018 also and he was appointed to the IPS for the Select List 2018. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is rejected.
25. The applicant has relied upon the case of Dev Dutt (supra). In that case, the bench mark (essential requirement) for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, the candidate should have „very good‟ entry for the last five years before DPC. The only „Good‟ entry for the Digitally year 1993-94 out of last five years, was not communicated to him. In signed by MAMTA WADHWA 19- O.A. No. 1376/2021 that situation, the „good‟ entry was deemed as adverse entry, because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for promotion. He contended that had he been communicated the entry, he would have had an opportunity of making a representation and, if, it was allowed, he would have also become eligible for promotion. The relevant para 11 of the judgment in Dev Dutt's case is reproduced hereunder:-
"11. Hence, in our opinion, the 'good' entry should have been communicated to the appellant so as to enable him to make a representation praying that the said entry for the year 1993-94 should be upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'. Of course, after considering such a representation it was open to the authority concerned to reject the representation and confirm the 'good' entry (though of course in a fair manner), but at least an opportunity of making such a representation should have been given to the appellant, and that would only have been possible had the appellant been communicated the 'good' entry, which was not done in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the non-communication of the 'good' entry was arbitrary and hence illegal, and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable."
26. Similarly, in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) also, the bench mark „very good‟ was required for being considered for promotion, therefore, the non-communication of „good‟ entry was held to be bad in law. However, in the present case, there is no such provision in the Regulations, 1955 that the officer with „Good‟ grading would not be considered for promotion to IPS. It is an admitted fact that his case has been duly forwarded by the State Government, considering him suitable, which was assessed by the Selection Committee, but due to his lower relative merit amongst the candidates in the consideration Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA 20- O.A. No. 1376/2021 zone and limited vacancy position, his name was not included in the Select List of 2017.
27. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Binoy Gupta (supra) and decision of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. J.P. Srivastava (supra). These cases also pertain to non-communication of downgrading of the ACRs below the prescribed bench mark for promotion, whereas the case is hand is not similar on facts.
28. In the present case, the applicant has failed to show any document in support of his plea that the minimum bench mark prescribed for promotion from SPS to IPS was „very good‟ so as to get strength from the ratio laid down in the cases aforementioned. The other judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable of this case as well as irrelevant, therefore, these do no help the applicant.
29. Thus, the issue stands settled that the „good‟ grading ACR given to the applicant, which did not, in any manner, eliminate his opportunity for fair consideration for promotion to the next higher post, cannot be treated as below bench mark or adverse. The applicant has already been promoted to IPS for Select List 2018 and the process with regard to the result of Select List 2017 has already been completed long back.
30. The applicant has also prayed for direction to the respondent no. 4 to issue „No Report Certificate‟ for the ACR for period 2012-13 and 2014-15 and forward the proposal to the UPSC for review Selection Committee Meeting for Select List 2017-18. In our considered view, this prayer of the applicant cannot be accepted as the ACRs for the above mentioned period has been duly reported by the Competent Officers and Digitally these have been forwarded to the Selection Committee, which assessed signed by MAMTA WADHWA 21- O.A. No. 1376/2021 the applicant on the basis thereof as per the provisions of the Regulations, 1955, therefore, this period cannot be treated as „No report Certificate‟. The NRC can be issued in lieu of an incomplete ACR, which is not the case of applicant.
31. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid stress upon the O.M. dated 21.08.2017 issued by the DOP&T as well as instructions with regards to holding of Review DPC, but we are convinced with the argument of Respondents no. 3 and 4 that the DOP&T instructions/guidelines on DPC meetings are not applicable in the case of promotion of State Police Officers to the All India Service. The DOP&T instructions are applicable in DPC cases for promotion within same cadre of Central Government, whereas the promotion of SPS officers to All India Police Service is distinct from the promotion within the same cadre of State/Central Government. Though, it is called appointment by promotion, but actually it is lateral induction of State Police Officers to the All India service i.e. from one service to another service, which is governed by a different set of Regulations call as "Promotion Regulation. Moreover, after induction of State Police Officer to the IPS officers, the appointing /disciplinary authority of All India Service Officers also changed.
32. Moreover, this Tribunal cannot sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee unless we find any irregularity or procedural lapse or malice in it. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of of Dalpat Abasaheb Solanke Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, while setting aside the decisions of the Hon‟ble High Court, has ruled as under:-
Digitally "9. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High signed by Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though MAMTA WADHWA 22- O.A. No. 1376/2021 their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for 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. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nutan Arvind Vs. Union of India and Another, 1996 SCC (2) 488 held as under:-
"The DPC which is a high-level committee, considered the merits of the respective candidates and the appellant, though considered, was not promoted. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that one K.S. Rao was the officer at the relevant time to review the performance of the appellant whereas in fact one Menon had reviewed it. The latter was not competent to review the performance of the appellant and to write the confidentials. We are afraid we cannot go into that question. It is for the DPC to Digitally consider at the time when the assessments of the respective signed by MAMTA WADHWA candidates is made. When a high-level committee had considered 23- O.A. No. 1376/2021 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. The DPC would come to its own conclusion on the basis of review by an officer and whether he is or is not competent to write the confidentials is for them to decide and call for report from the proper officer. It had done that exercise and found the appellant not fit for promotion. Thus we do not find any manifest error of law for interference."
34. In arriving at the conclusion as discussed hereinabove, we are fortified by the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Vs. H.L. Dev and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1069, wherein it has been held as under:-
"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. The jurisdiction to make the selection is vested in the Selection Committee."
35. Further, the Internal Guidelines/Procedures of the Commission which are uniformly applied by the Selection Committee across all States/Cadres, have been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Vs. M. Sathiya Priya and Others (Civil Appeal No. 10854/2014) vide judgment dated 13.04.2018 while observing as under:-
"9. The Regulations as well as the Guidelines are to be applied jointly at the time of making the selection list. In our considered opinion, the Regulations and the guidelines prescribe adequate procedure and they form a complete code in themselves."
Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA 24- O.A. No. 1376/2021 Therefore, we did not find any illegality or ambiguity in the proposal sent by the Respondent no. 4 as well as the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in preparation of Select List, 2017, excluding the name of applicant.
36. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents at any stage. They processed the case of the applicant for promotion completely in accordance with provisions of the Regulations, 1955. Also, no malafide has been alleged by the applicant against any of the respondents. Though the main issue stands settled against the applicant, it is pertinent to observe that the respondents relied upon instructions dated 01.05.1975, 16.08.1983 and 06.06.1989, for non- communication of „Good‟ grading of the applicant. As per these instructions only adverse ACRs require to be communicated to the person concerned. These instructions need to be re-visited by the respondent no. 4 in view of the mandate of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt's case (supra) that not only the adverse ACR but even the „good grading‟ ACR, if it is below the bench mark, has to be communicated to the employee concerned.
37. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the Original Application is found to be meritless and it stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 28.08.2025
„mw‟
Whether Reportable: YES
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA