Supreme Court of India
Gurdayal Singh Fiji vs The State Of Punjab And Ors on 14 October, 1981
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 2015, 1982 SCR (1) 904, AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 2015, 1981 LAB IC 1600, (1981) 2 SERVLJ 457, 1981 (4) SCC 419, (1982) 1 LAB LN 44, 1981 SCC (L&S) 647
Author: Amarendra Nath Sen
Bench: Amarendra Nath Sen, Y.V. Chandrachud, A. Varadarajan
PETITIONER:
GURDAYAL SINGH FIJI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/10/1981
BENCH:
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
BENCH:
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 2015 1982 SCR (1) 904
1981 SCC (4) 419 1981 SCALE (1)1553
CITATOR INFO :
D 1987 SC 593 (18)
ACT:
Constitution of lndia 1950, Article 32 and Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation
1955-Member of State Civil Service Cadre Adverse remarks in
confidential roll-Certificate of integrity not granted-
I.A.S. Select List-Claim for inclusion-Whether maintainable.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner, a member of the State Provincial Civil
Service, in his writ petition to this Court contended that
he was one of the senior most persons in the service, with a
consistently good record, but because of two adverse remarks
by two officers, certificate of integrity had not been given
to him, and that the adverse remarks made against him were
mala fide and unjustified and the refusal to grant him a
certificate of integrity and to include his name in the
l.A.S. Select List was wrongful and illegal.
Dismissing the writ petition,
^
HELD :1. The I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares
the Select List is an independent body, The petitioner
cannot claim to be included in the Select List as a matter
of right. The Select List is prepared by the Selection
Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of the
suitability of the officer concerned and the recommendations
made by the Selection Committee have to be approved by the
Union Public Service Commission. [906 C-D]
In the instant case the Selection Committee has not
considered the petitioner to be suitable to be included in
the Select List and the Union Public Service Commission has
agreed with the recommendation of the Selection
Committee.The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the
Select List must, therefore, fail. [906 E]
2. The petitioner is now SS years of age and the age
bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List deprives
the petitioner from being included in the Select List. [906
F]
JUDGMENT:
ORlGlNAL JURlSDlCTlON: Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1980. (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner in person Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No. 1.
905P.A. Francis, N. Netlar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent A No. 15.
Jitendra Sharma and P. Caur for Respondents Nos. 25-31, 33-38, 41-43, 46-48 and 51-55.
Respondent No. 58 in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of the Punjab Provincial Civil Service, has presented this writ petition in person and he has argued his own case in person.
The main grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition appears to be against the non-inclusion of his name in the l.A.S. Select List.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the senior-most persons in the service with a consistently good record of service on the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certificate of integrity has not been given to him. The Petitioner submits that the adverse remarks made against him were mala fide and unjustified and the refusal to grant him a certificate of integrity and not to include his name in the I.A.S. Select List is wrongful and illegal.
As this writ petition may be disposed of on a short point, it does not become necessary for us to set out at length the various facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has taken us through the records and the various documents filed in support of his case made in the writ petition.
In view of the grievance made by the Petitioner as to non-inclusion of his name in the Select List, this Court by an order(l) passed on 9.3.1979 directed the I. A. S. Selection Committee to hold a special meeting to consider the question of inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the Select List. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, I.A.S. Selection Committee held a special meeting on the 21.7.1979 and the Selection Committee found the Petitioner to be unsuitable for inclusion in the Select List. It may be noted that the I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the Select List is an independent body and recommendations of the 906 I.A.S. Selection Committee further require to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission. The decision taken by the I A.S. Selection Committee at the meeting held on 21.7.1979 pursuant to the order of this Court refusing to include the Petitioner in the Select List was approved by the Union Public Service Commission which agreed with the recommendation. An affidavit has also been filed by Shri D.C. Mishra, Director, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The averments made in this affidavit go to establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List was properly considered by the Selection Committee on merits As we have earlier noticed, the Selection Committee is an independent body and there is nothing on record to pursuade us to hold that the decision of the Selection Committee was not properly arrived at on consideration of the merits of the case and was, in any way, otherwise motivated. The Petitioner cannot claim to be included in the Select List as a matter of right. The Select List is prepared by the Selection Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of suitability of the officer concerned and recommendations made by the Selection Committee have to be approved by the Union Public service Commission.
As the Selection Committee has not considered the Petitioner to be suitable to be included in Select List and the Union Public Service Commission has agreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the select List must fail.
There is another aspect of the matter which goes to establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List cannot now be considered. The Petitioner is now SS years of age and the age bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List debars the Petitioner from being included in the Select List. In the result this petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
907