Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xv) (1998) 3 SCC 694 Union of India & Anr. V. N.Chandrasekharan & Ors.

(xvi) (2004) 6 SCC 786 Inder Parkash Gupta v.

State of J & K & Ors.

(xvii) (2006) 6 SCC 395 K.H.Siraj v, High Court of Kerala & Ors.

10. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by this Court in several decisions, now we shall examine the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellants which had been addressed. But we may at the very out set observe that the Court while considering the proceedings of the Selection Committee does not sit in a court of appeal. Courts have limited scope to interfere, either selection is actuated with mala fide or statutory provisions have not been followed. In the present case, 39 candidates were examined by the Selection Committee for being recommended for appointment to the I.A,S. The selection process took place between 24.11.2003 and 28.11.2003 whereby the Selection Committee scrutinized the service records of the individual candidates and interviewed them and the Selection Committee selected those candidates who were found to be having outstanding merit and ability. The Commission has fixed 50 marks for scrutiny of the service records and 50 marks were allotted for interview. It was also decided by the Commission that the candidates would be eligible for selection only if they secure 50% marks in each of the two components i.e. 25 marks in the scrutiny of the service records and 25 marks in the interview. The Commission has further laid down the norms for awarding marks for the scrutiny of service records. 10 marks are awarded to a candidate if on an assessment of service record he was found to be outstanding, 8 marks if the service record was found to be very good and 5 marks if it was good. Candidates who have failed to secure 25 marks in the interview were not held to be qualified. Similarly, the candidates who failed to secure 25 marks on the basis of the service records were also not held to be eligible. However, on facts no person was rejected on the ground that he failed to secure 25 marks either on the basis of the service records or on the basis of interview. The Tribunal while scrutinizing the records sent by the Selection Committee set aside the selection of eight candidates namely Sarvashri Anwar Pasha and K.Ramanna Naik, who according to the Tribunal were wrongly selected. The block period is five years for which the confidential records of the candidates were scrutinized by the Selection Committee i.e. from 1997-98 to 2001-02. It is alleged that the confidential report of Shri Anwar Pasa for the year 1998-99 was written on 14.6.2002 and for the year 1999-2000 was written on 15.6.2002. It is further alleged that these confidential reports were written beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1994) and the same could not have been looked into by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the selection of Shri Anwar Pasha was invalid. It was found by the Selection Committee that the Annual Confidential Reports of this Officer for these two years were not written within the time limit prescribed as required under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. But it was pointed out that Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994 was amended in 1999 and the time limit prescribed was done away with retrospective effect. It was provided as per clause (b) of Rule 5 of the amending Rules of 1999 that the reports written or reviewed or accepted in accordance with the 1994 Rules as amended in the year 1999 shall be deemed to be valid for the purpose of that rule. But in view of the retrospective amendment of the Rules of 1999, the time limit having been done away with the reports could have been taken into consideration but it was further pointed out that the Rules of 1994 were repealed in 2000 and the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 2000) came into force. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2000 provided that the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the 1994 Rules or anything duly done or suffered there under or affect any right, liability or obligation acquired, accrued or incurred under those Rules. Therefore, so far as the annual confidential reports in respect of Shri Anwar Pasa which were written after the period of two years should not have been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee, does not survive because the Rules of 2000 repealed the Rules of 1994 and consequential amendment of Rules of 1999 was done away with. Therefore, the reports for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 cannot be taken away and these two ACRs cannot be ignored and it has been rightly not ignored by the Selection Committee. More so, if the ACRS are not written or reviewed, then the incumbent is not responsible for it and why should he suffer on account of that. The authority who is under obligation to complete the formalities having failed to do so till the lapse of time why the incumbent should be punished. We fail to appreciate the submissions of the parties before the Tribunal and the view taken by the Tribunal also. It was also pointed that the operation of the Rules of 1999 was stayed by the Tribunal, that may be so. But even thereafter also when the Rules of 2000 have repealed the Rules of 1994, then what turns on the stay order granted by the Tribunal and we cannot hold the incumbent responsible for it and deprive him the due consideration if there is failure on the part of the officers to discharge their duties in writing the ACRs, the incumbent should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, we are of opinion that it is not a case in which there was any statutory breach of Rules committed by the Selection Committee in taking into consideration the ACRs of Shri Anwar Pasha. In the case of another candidate i.e. Shri K.Ramanna Naik, his confidential reports for the years 2000-2001 and 2002-2002 were not written in time in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. Therefore, special reports were obtained, that too is also covered by the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) (Amendment) Rules, 1996. Rule 11-A says that when performance reports in respect of officers are not available for one or more years, the appointing authority, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may direct the concerned reporting officer or the reviewing authority to prepare and submit the report within a specified time for the entire period or for each year for which the report was not written. There again the question is failure on the part of the reporting officer or the reviewing authority not writing the report of the officer for which the officer cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, in this background, provisions have been made for special reports and in the administrative jurisprudence special reports can be sought for in respect of any officer whenever his case comes for consideration and if the Selection Committee wants to have the up to date report of that incumbent. It is the established practice to call for such kind of special reports. The idea is that for not reporting the annual confidential reports of the incumbent, why the incumbent should be made to suffer. Therefore, the Selection Committee or the concerned authority can always ask for the annual confidential reports which were not written for a particular year by the reporting authority or by the reviewing authority or in some cases it can also seek a special report. Such practice cannot be said to be unusual practice in administrative jurisprudence. In the present case, it appears that a special report in respect of Sh. K. Ramanna Naik was obtained and that was considered by the Selection Committee. Therefore, this procedure adopted by the Selection Committee cannot be found to be arbitrary or in any way discriminatory. Consideration of both these Officers cannot be faulted on that ground.

11. It is also contended that the marking given by the Selection Committee was arbitrary. The grievance was that confidential report of Shri S.Daya Shankar for the year 2000-2001 was not available and in case of Sri R. Pramapriya, the confidential report for the year 1997=98 was not available. Yet the reports of Shri S.Daya Shankar was assessed to be outstanding and Shri R.Ramapriya was assessed to be very good without there being any basis for it. This was found by the Tribunal to be patently arbitrary. It is the selection process and what prevailed with the Committee after review of the annual confidential reports of all these officers cannot be dilated in writing. When the Selection Committee sits and considers the candidature of both the officers and in case of both the officers, looking at the 5 years annual confidential reports, one is found to be over all outstanding and the other is found to be over all very good, this marking of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with in extraordinary jurisdiction or even by the Tribunal. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an appellate authority to call for the personal records and constitute selection committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the Courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the over all view of the ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an appellate authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in R.S.Dass (supra)[ 1986 (Supp.) SCC 617] wherein at paragraph 28 it was held as follows:

 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. In fact the Selection Committee makes an overall relative assessment of the confidential report dossiers of the officers in the zone of consideration. Thus, it does not evaluate the confidential report dossier of an individual in isolation. It is after this comparative assessment that the best candidates are put in the Select List.