Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8847 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 12370 of 2018]
Baidyanath Yadav .....Appellant
Versus
Aditya Narayan Roy & Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8848 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 13927 of 2018]
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.:
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise against the final judgment and order of the
High Court of Patna dated 06.04.2018 passed in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017 allowing the appeal filed by
Respondent No. 1 herein, and quashing the appointment of the
Appellant in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019 (“the Appellant”) to the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Administrative Service.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2019.11.20
16:51:40 IST
Reason:
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:
3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacancies in
2
the Indian Administrative Service (“the IAS”) from amongst nonState
Civil Service officers (“nonSCS officers”) for the Selection Year 2014.
The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No. 1, Aditya Narayan
Roy and Respondent No. 9 in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019, Ram Prakash
Sahni (“Respondent No. 9”), belonged to the Bihar Agricultural Service.
The Department of Agriculture, along with other departments, was
invited to recommend the names of two officials to the State Screening
Committee for selection of ten persons to be recommended to the
Union Public Service Commission (“the UPSC”) for final selection. The
Selection Committee of the Department of Agriculture, headed by the
Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated 07.08.2014, considered the
names of four officials of the department, being the Appellant,
Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 9, and one Ravindra Kumar
Verma, and recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent
No. 9. The recommendations were then placed before the minister
concerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed that
Respondent No. 1’s name may be recommended. As a consequence,
the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the State
Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placing
Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Before the State Screening
Committee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, the
3
Appellant was mentioned at Serial No. 14, Respondent No. 9 at Serial
No. 15, and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 16. The State Screening
Committee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten names
for consideration to the UPSC, including the names of the Appellant
and Respondent No. 9, but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two
officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the
Appellant, the other being an official from another department. This
was notified by the Department of Personnel Training vide notification
No. 14015/4/2014AIS(I)B dated 22.01.2015.
3.2 Respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’s
appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to
recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State Screening
Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his
name to the UPSC, for the UPSC to conduct a fresh assessment for his
appointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in case
of favourable recommendations.
3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s application, noting
that the departmental minister’s order dated 11.08.2014 did not
contain any finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the most
meritorious candidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the
4
noninclusion of his name in the initial recommendation made by the
Department of Agriculture. Thus, there was no illegality or mala fides
in Respondent No. 1’s name occurring at Serial No. 3 in the list
forwarded to the State Screening Committee, contrary to his argument
that his name should have occurred at the top since he was the most
meritorious. The Tribunal further reasoned that even if Respondent
No. 1’s name had been at the top in this list, in the list prepared by
the State Screening Committee he would still have figured only at
Serial No. 14 instead of Serial No. 16, which was irrelevant, since the
only pertinent aspect was that his name was considered along with
other officials. The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s application
noting that his case was based on conjectures about being selected if
his name had been recommended to the UPSC committee, and that
directing the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to
the UPSC would amount to sitting in judgment over the evaluation of
merit by the authorities.
3.4 Respondent No. 1 filed a writ application seeking the setting
aside of the above order of the Tribunal, which was allowed by the
High Court. The Court reasoned that the State Screening Committee
had failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was
bound to do, in light of its absolute power over the trajectory of the
5
career of the aspirants to the IAS, and the mere presence of senior
officers on the committee would not by itself guarantee objectivity and
fairness in decisionmaking. Moreover, the Court held that since
Respondent No. 1’s name was the only one recommended to the UPSC
the previous year, which recommendation had remained in limbo, his
name should have figured as the first candidate in the list of
recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture. The Court
noted that upon examining the manner of consideration of names, it
was not satisfied of objectivity, fairness and the lack of consideration
of extraneous reasons in the selection process, with efforts to keep
Respondent No. 1 out of the process apparent at every stage.
3.5 The High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal,
directing that the State Screening Committee recommend Respondent
No. 1’s name to the UPSC within two weeks, and that the UPSC
thereafter consider his case objectively. Such consideration would also
determine the fate of the Appellant, whose inclusion into the IAS cadre
would not create any right in his favour until the decision of the UPSC
on Respondent No. 1’s name. For the purpose of the consideration of
Respondent No. 1’s name, the post would be considered to be vacant
for the year 2014. After the State Screening Committee made its
recommendation, the UPSC would be expected to hold an interview
6
and evaluation of Respondent No. 1 preferably within a period of six
weeks. This lead the Appellant and the State of Bihar to approach this
Court by way of the instant appeals.
4. Heard the Counsel for either side and perused the record.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,
argued that the High Court erred in giving weight to the serial order in
which the names of the officers were placed before the State Screening
Committee; nondisclosure of reasons by a selection committee does
not vitiate their decision, unless required by rules or administrative
instructions (relying on National Institute of Mental Health &
Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman , 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481,
and v. ,
Union Public Service Commission Arun Kumar Sharma
(2015) 12 SCC 600), which was not the case here; there was no
direction by the departmental minister to keep Respondent No. 1’s
name at the top; and the direction for reconsideration of his name
alone, rather than of all the recommended candidates, was beyond the
jurisdiction of the High Court.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, took
us through the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Selection) Regulations, 1997 (“the 1997 Regulations”), and submitted
that the departmental Selection Committee and the State Screening
7
Committee had undertaken a fair and objective assessment of the
service records under the Regulations. He also pointed out that in the
absence of any allegation of mala fides or bias, it could not be held
that there was any undue influence on the committee members. He
ended by referring to the decision of this Court in Union Public
, (2018) 15 SCC 796,
Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya
emphasising that the High Court could not have reassessed the
findings of the committees on merit.
4.3 It was submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr.
R. Venkataramani, submitted that as per the 1997 Regulations, the
officers were to be recommended by the State Government based on
whether they possessed outstanding merit and ability, which was to be
assessed based on objectively determinable criteria such as the
Annual Confidential Records (“ACRs”) of the officers. Arguing that
since all of Respondent No. 1’s ACRs reflected better grading than the
Appellant’s, having the grade “Excellent” with respect to every aspect
as opposed to P’s “Very Goods”, his nonselection reflected that the
selection committees had travelled beyond such ACRs in
recommending the Appellant’s name, and had thus acted arbitrarily.
He also drew our attention to the minutes of the meeting of the State
Screening Committee, which, while considering the recommended
8
names, had noted that Respondent No. 1’s name had not been
recommended by the departmental Selection Committee and would
hence not be considered. It was argued that this had unfairly
prejudiced Respondent No. 1’s prospects, since the addition of his
name to the list by the Minister was completely valid, in light of the
letter dated 22.05.2014 of the General Administration Department
(“GAD”), which specified that the recommendations of the department
had to be approved by the concerned minister.
5. At the heart of the dispute before us for consideration lies the
scope of judicial review of the process governing the selection of non
SCS officers to the IAS, for which it is important to take stock of the
position governing judicial review of selections made by a duly
constituted expert body.
5.1 It is by now wellsettled that the scope of such review is limited,
and the Tribunal or Court cannot reassess the merit of the individual
candidates. As observed by a 2Judge Bench of this Court in M.V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC , (2008) 2 SCC 119:
“ Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of
21.
the candidates. 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 as a
9
court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates
nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate
and record its opinion…”
5.2 This view has subsequently been affirmed by this Court in
various decisions, including the recent decision of a 2Judge Bench of
this Court in M. Sathiya Priya (supra), of which one of us was a
member. In this decision, this Court, while setting aside the re
assessment undertaken by the Tribunal and the High Court of the
recommendations made by the Selection Committee to the UPSC for
appointments to be made to the Indian Police Service by promotion,
observed as follows:
“ 17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the
field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of
UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central
Government and the State Government who have expertise
in the matter. In our considered opinion, when a HighLevel
Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of
each of the candidates, assessed the grading and
considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT
and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the
Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question
as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant
records and as to what norms apply in making the
assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection
Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per
law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the
Selection Committee members have got expertise in the
matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in
such matters except in cases where the process of
assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to
hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the
decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the
10
relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether
a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be
decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the
Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope of
judicial review in such matters.”
(emphasis added)
5.3 It can be concluded from the above that it was not for the High
Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates,
and neither is it appropriate for us to do the same. All we may look
into is whether there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or
any bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. To
address this question, it is essential to revisit the process prescribed
for the selection of nonSCS officers to the IAS.
6. Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1954 governs the selection of officers to the IAS by way of promotion
or selection. While Rule 8(1) deals with promotion from the State Civil
Services, Rule 8(2) deals with selection from amongst officers of
outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with the affairs of
the State, who are not members of the State Civil Service but hold a
gazetted post in a substantive capacity, i.e. nonSCS officers.
6.1 The 1997 Regulations were framed in pursuance of Rule 8(2).
As per Regulation 4, the State Government is required to recommend
the names of persons as described in Rule 8(2), for consideration of
the Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the IAS
11
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (“the 1955
Regulations”), comprising members of the UPSC (“the UPSC
Committee”). Such persons must also have attained the age of 54
years on the first day of January of the year in which their case is
being considered, by which time they must have completed a
minimum of eight years of continuous service under the State
Government in any post which has been declared equivalent to the
post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. Such persons must
also not have been selected in an earlier list for appointment to the
IAS and subsequently not been appointed by the Central Government
in the exercise of its powers under Regulation 9. The number of
persons recommended by the State Government may not exceed five
times the number of vacancies proposed to be filled during the year.
6.2 Regulation 5 provides that the UPSC Committee, upon
consideration of the names proposed by the State Government, may
recommend the names of as many persons as there are vacancies. The
suitability of a person for appointment to the IAS cadre is to be
determined by scrutiny of service records as well as through a
personal interview. After consultation with the State Government, a
Select List is to be prepared with the names so selected, and
appointments are to be made in the manner prescribed thereafter.
12
6.3 After the above regulations came into force, guidelines were
formulated in 2003 for the selection of persons under
Regulation 5, which were circulated vide memorandum
No. 4/14/2003AIS. The guidelines pertain to the assessment of
candidates based on their service records and personal interview. In
Paragraph B.1 of the guidelines, it is outlined that out of a total of 100
marks to be awarded, equal weightage has to be accorded to the
service record, with particular reference to ACRs for the preceding five
years, and to the interview. Furthermore, the curriculum vitae of the
candidate may be kept in consideration while assessing the overall
personality of the candidate during the interview.
6.4 Paragraph B.2 states that on the basis of the assessment of the
individual ACRs, the UPSC Committee may assign 10 marks for the
“Outstanding” grade, 8 marks for “Very Good”, 6 marks for “Good”,
and 4 for “Average”, in the individual years of assessment. While
assigning marks to the ACRs of the eligible officers, the broad
guidelines for the 1955 Regulations may be followed. It is relevant to
note that as per the 1955 Regulations, the Committee must also
satisfy itself as to the integrity of the candidates based on the remarks
on their confidential reports.
6.5 Paragraph B.3 states that the minimum score necessary for a
13
candidate to be selected is 50% marks in each component. Paragraph
B.4 states that a merit list of selected candidates is to be prepared, in
the sequence of the scores obtained, further providing that in case of a
tie between officers, the older officer is to be placed above in the list.
Paragraph C lays down the topics which may be covered by the
Committee during the personal interview.
7. In accordance with the above regulations, the Principal Secretary,
GAD, Government of Bihar had invited submissions of the name of the
most suitable person from each department for the recommendation of
nonSCS officers for selection to the IAS, vide letter dated 22.05.2014.
The important conditions required to be fulfilled for a valid
recommendation to be made, as laid down in paragraph 3 of the letter,
are reproduced below verbatim:
“(b) The recommended officer should necessarily possess
excellent qualification as per law and any primefacie case
should not be proved against them.
(c) While clearly entering the servicehistory of the
officers, for it, please attach separate sheet.
(d) While preparing the particulars of their annual
confidential remarks with Reporting, Monitoring and
Acceptance, Authority Grading, it be attached on separate
sheet. As well, updated full Character Encyclopedia be
attached.
(e) A certificate of nonpendency of any matter against the
officers before the Departmental charges, Cabinet
(Monitoring) Department and Lokayukt Office, be sent, so
that, acceptance of the certificate of truthfulness would be
appropriated totally.
(f) previous posting particulars of the officers (Including
14
payscale) be included.
xxx
(h) Original copy of the proceedings of Selection
Committee, attested copy with the nomination letter should
be enclosed necessarily. On the recommendation of
Selection Committee, approval of the Departmental Minister
be received necessarily and this fact be clarified in the letter
that on the recommendation of selection committee, the
approval of Departmental Minister has been received. In
case, its clear reference is not mentioned, the
recommendation shall not be considerable.”
8. Vide letter dated 23.07.2014, the names of two suitable persons
per department were allowed to be submitted. In this scenario, the
departmental Selection Committee recommended the names of the
Appellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed
before the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’s
name may be recommended, noting that he had been recommended
the previous year, and there was no bar on recommending such a
person again if he fulfilled all requisite criteria. Thereafter, the
Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the State
Screening Committee, with Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3.
As mentioned supra, out of a total of seventeen recommendations
received from various departments, the State Screening Committee
recommended ten names for consideration to the UPSC, which
included the Appellant but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two
officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the
15
Appellant.
9. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argument that
placing his name at the bottom of the list of recommendations made
by the departmental Selection Committee even after he was
recommended by the concerned minister, and subsequently at Serial
No. 16 instead of No. 14 before the State Screening Committee,
prejudiced the selection process against him. However, as evident from
the regulations and guidelines governing the process of selection of
nonSCS officers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014
calling for recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no
relevance to the serial order in which the names of candidates were
recommended by either the Department of Agriculture or the State
Screening Committee. The order of placement in the list only acquires
relevance at the stage of preparation of the Select List by the UPSC
Committee under Regulation 5 read with the relevant guidelines.
Thus, there is merit in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant
and the State Government that the order of placement of the
candidates’ names in the lists prepared by the departmental and State
committees wrongly weighed with the High Court.
9.1 Additionally, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 1, it appears from the records of the meetings of the
16
State Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No. 1’s
name while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on
the ground that his name had not been recommended by the
departmental Selection Committee. However, the 1997 Regulations
read with the relevant guidelines indicate that no fault can be found
with this approach. Though the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014
stipulated that the departmental minister’s approval was necessary for
any recommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this did
not confer any power upon him to recommend a name of his own
accord. Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’s name being
added to the list of two officials already recommended by the
departmental committee, more so when only two names had been
invited by the GAD, must be held to be irregular and in violation of the
applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. Moreover, in such a
scenario, it cannot be said that there was any malice or bias leading to
the nonconsideration of Respondent No. 1’s name by the State
Screening Committee.
9.2 Moreover, we find ourselves in disagreement with the
conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State Screening
Committee was arbitrary for nondisclosure of reasons. A catena of
decisions of this Court has established that even the principles of
17
natural justice do not require a duly constituted selection committee
to disclose the reasons for its decision, as long as no rule or regulation
obliges it to do so. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this
Court in National Institute of Mental Health (supra), which has
also been subsequently affirmed in several cases, including
Union
Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma (supra). In
National Institute of Mental Health (supra), the Court, following the
decision in v. , (1986) Supp SCC 617,
R.S. Dass Union of India
observed as follows:
“ 7. ... In the first place, it must be noted that the function of
the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory.
It is purely administrative... Administrative authority is
under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its
decision. Indeed, 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 nonselection 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 : (1987) 2 ATC 628] in which Capoor Case [(1973) 2
SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : (1974) 1 SCR 797] was also
distinguished.
8. ... 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...”
18
9.3 As there is no such requirement mandating the disclosure of
reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, there is no
doubt in our minds that the procedure adopted by the State Screening
Committee cannot be faulted.
10. Having thus found that the State Screening Committee was
correct in considering only the two names recommended by the
departmental Selection Committee, we now turn our attention to the
crucial question of whether Respondent No. 1’s name was wrongly
excluded by the departmental Selection Committee itself, on account
of any bias, malice or arbitrariness.
10.1 In this respect, the High Court observed that though Respondent
No. 1 had been recommended as the only candidate from the
Department of Agriculture in the previous year, 2013, such
recommendation was not acted upon since the meeting for the year in
question could not be held in time by the UPSC. It was further
observed that the notings revealed that the primary reason why
Respondent No. 1’s name was not recommended in 2014 was because
his name had been recommended earlier. The Court noted that there
was no clarity on how the earlier recommendation came in the way of
his name being recommended after a fresh exercise was initiated in
2014, which lead the Court to conclude that the nonrecommendation
19
of his name at the first instance appeared to be based on extraneous
considerations.
10.2 We find ourselves unable to agree with the above conclusion of
the High Court. As per the letter dated 30.05.2013 from the GAD to
the Department of Agriculture, the previous year’s recommendation of
Respondent No. 1’s name by the latter department had in fact been
returned by the GAD for not being in consonance with the expected
norms of recommendation. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that it is
unclear which notings the High Court relied on to conclude that
Respondent No. 1 had not been recommended because of his earlier
recommendation, it is evident that the High Court erred in observing
that Respondent No. 1’s recommendation from the previous year had
simply remained in limbo, and that his nonrecommendation the next
year was therefore suspect. Thus, we are of the view that there is no
hint of arbitrariness, mala fide or bias in the recommendation of two
other officers, including the Appellant, by the Department of
Agriculture in 2014.
11. In any case, we find that the direction issued by the High Court
directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent
No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely without jurisdiction. Upon
reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court
20
could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening
Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due
consideration to all relevant documents. As already observed above, it
was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the
candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening
Committee. Be that as it may, in light of the above discussion, we
conclude that there is no case to direct the reconsideration of the
seventeen candidates before the Screening Committee, or to interfere
with the appointments already made for the Selection Year 2014.
12. The decision of the High Court is therefore set aside, and the
instant appeals are allowed.
...........................................J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
...........................................J.
(Ajay Rastogi)
New Delhi;
November 19, 2019.