UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs. M.SATHIYA PRIYA AND ORS.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10854 OF 2014 Union Public Service Commission       ..Appellant Versus M. Sathiya Priya and others . .Respondents J U D G M E N T MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. 1. This   appeal   is   directed   by   the   Union   Public   Service Commission (for short, ‘UPSC’) against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.04.13 18:22:34 IST Reason: Madras in Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the UPSC 2 and confirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai   Bench,   Chennai   (for   short,   ‘CAT’),   dated   07.04.2010 directing the official respondents to consider the name of   the first respondent herein for appointment to the IPS by taking into account   the   service   records   for   the   period   from   1.4.2003   to 31.3.2008, and appoint her to the IPS by notionally treating such appointment   with   effect   from   the     date   of   notification,   i.e., 5.5.2009, and also by giving appropriate place of seniority to the first respondent amongst the private respondents. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The first respondent (contesting respondent) was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu; she joined   for   duties   on   26.05.1997;   she   was   promoted   as Superintendent   of   Police   on   10.06.2006   and   has   worked   at different places on the said post.   In the seniority list of State Police Service (for short ‘SPS’) Officers, the first respondent, at the given point of time, stood at serial No.11.  Since the fourth person in the seniority list was over­aged, the first respondent was effectively considered at serial No.10 in the seniority list for the purpose of this case.   For the year 2008, there were ten vacancies for SPS to the Indian Police Service (for short, ‘IPS’), 3 which is an All India Service.  The appointment by promotion to the   IPS   is   governed   by   the   IPS   (Appointment   by   Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). The zone of consideration is three times the number of vacancies and, therefore, at least thirty names ought to be considered for appointment to the IPS.  The names of the first thirty officers in the SPS including the name of the first respondent, were placed before the Selection Committee for consideration for appointment to the IPS for the year 2008.  The name of the first respondent was considered at serial No. 9 in the zone of consideration.  On an   oral   assessment   of   her   service   records,   the   Selection Committee graded the first respondent as “Good”.   On  the basis of this grading, she could not be included in the select list of 2008 due to the statutory limit of its size and the availability of officers   with   higher   grading   for   inclusion   in   the   select   list. Though, at an earlier point of time, it was found that disciplinary proceedings   were   pending   against   Srimati   V.   Jayashree (respondent no.6 herein), subsequently on being cleared by the disciplinary   authority,   the   Government   of   India   issued   a notification   appointing   Srimati   V.   Jayashree   also   to   the   IPS. 4 Thus, all the ten vacancies were filled by the Government of India including that of respondent no.6 herein. 3. Aggrieved by the non­inclusion of her name in the select list of 2008, the first respondent filed Original Application No. 441 of 2009   before   the   CAT,   inter   alia   contending   that   on   valid assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee ought to have graded her as “Outstanding” or at least “Very Good”, and in that event she would have been selected for appointment to the IPS. She also contended that her service records are better than those of almost all the private respondents and that the Selection Committee had acted in an arbitrary manner in making the selection by superseding her for appointment to the IPS. 4. The CAT allowed the Original Application No. 441 of 2009 filed   by   the   first   respondent   herein   by   its   judgment   dated 07.04.2010.  The judgment of the CAT is confirmed by the High Court  of   Judicature   at   Madras   in  Writ   Petition   No.   15367   of 2010, vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2013.  The judgments of the CAT and the High Court are called in question in this appeal by the UPSC. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the UPSC discharges the functions   and   duties   assigned   to   it   under   Article   320   of   the 5 Constitution.  By virtue of the provisions in the All India Services Act, 1951, separate recruitment rules have been framed for the IAS/IPS/IFS.  In pursuance of Sub­rule (1) of Rule 9 of the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,   1955   have   been   framed.     The   method   of appointment is provided in Regulation 5, which reads thus: “5. PREPARATION   OF   A   LIST   OF   SUITABLE OFFICERS:­

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 6 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 Committee   meets   again,   the   Select   List shall be prepared separately for each year during   which   the   Committee   could   not st meet as on the 31  December of each year. EXPLANATION:­ In case of Joint Cadres, a separate   select   list   shall   be   prepared   in respect of each State Police Service.

7

8 5(2)(A) Deleted.

9 Provided   that   he   shall   be   considered   for inclusion   in   the   Select   List,   if   before   the commencement of the year, he applies in writing, to the State Government expressing his   unwillingness   to   be   considered   for appointment to the service; b) was   not   appointed   to   the   service   by   the Central Government under regulation 9 (a). 5(4)   The   Selection   Committee   shall   classify   the eligible   officers   as  "Outstanding", "Very   Good",    "Good" and "unfit" as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(5)   The   List   shall   be   prepared   by   including   the required  number  of  names  first from  amongst 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   inter­se   within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service. Provided   that   the   name   of   an   officer   so included   in   the   list   shall   be   treated   as provisional if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such an officer   or   any   proceedings,   departmental   or criminal are pending against him or anything adverse   against   him   which   renders   him unsuitable for appointment to the service has come to the notice of the State Government. Provided further that while preparing yearwise select lists for more than one year pursuant to nd the 2  proviso to sub regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any of the Select List so prepared shall be considered for inclusion in the Select List of subsequent year in addition to the normal consideration zone and in case 10 he is found fit for inclusion in the suitability list for that year on a provisional basis such inclusion  shall  be  in  addition  to  the   normal size of the select list determined by the Central Government for such year. EXPLANATION   I:   The   proceedings   shall   be treated as pending only if a charge­sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a Court as the case may be. EXPLANATION   II:   The   adverse   thing   which came   to the  notice  of   the   State   Government rendering him unsuitable for appointment to the service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the details of the same have been communicated to the Central Government   and   the   Central   Government   is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on the suitability of   the   officer   and   investigation   thereof   is essential. 5 (6)  Omitted. 5 (7)  Deleted.” 6. Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel representing the appellant herein, while taking us to the material on record, submits that the CAT,  as well as  the High Court, has  fallen into  error by virtually assessing the performance of the first respondent as an appellate   authority   and   that   too   wrongly;   they   have   erred   in taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008; the relevant Annual Confidential Reports to be considered for the purpose of the selection in question were 11 from 1.4.2002 to 31.03.2007, the Selection Committee has rightly taken into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports of those years only, and therefore the impugned judgments are bad in law; the selection is to be made by the Selection Committee not only   based   on   Annual   Confidential   Reports   in   respect   of   the concerned   officer   but   also   based   on   other   relevant   factors including   the   examination   of   service   records   of   the   officer   in comparison   to   the   other   officers   in   the   eligibility   list/zone   of consideration and on the basis of overall relative assessment. Contrary to the afore­mentioned procedure prescribed and being followed throughout, the CAT, as well as the High Court, has decided the matter purely on the basis of the grading found in the Annual Confidential Reports of the first respondent, and that too of the year 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008. 7. Per   contra,   Shri   Venkatramani,   learned   senior   counsel argued in support of the judgments of the CAT as well as the High   Court   contending   that   the   service   record   of   the   first respondent     has   been   mostly   “Outstanding”   throughout   till 31.03.2008, or even till 31.03.2007; the first respondent ought to have   been   graded   as   “Outstanding”   or   at   least   “Very   Good”; absolutely   no   reasons   are   assigned   to   supersede   the   first 12 respondent   by   making   the   appointment   of   her   juniors   in preference to the first respondent; the other private respondents were graded as “Very Good” but none of the six juniors selected had the “Outstanding” grading in their service records, and some of them did not even have the “Very Good” grading; the Selection Committee and the UPSC have not objectively evaluated the first respondent in accordance with the regulations, and hence the list prepared   which   was   impugned   before   the   CAT   was   rightly modified with a direction to appoint the first respondent in IPS. Relying upon the judgment in the case of  R.S. Dass vs. Union of India   and   others   1986   (Supp)   SCC   617 ,   he   contended   that Regulation  5  examines   the   role   of  seniority  in  the   process  of selection, and importance and primacy was given to merit.  The categorisation of meritorious candidates is done on the basis of service   records   including   Confidential   Character   Roll   as mentioned by senior officers holding high positions.  He further contended that it cannot be said now­a­days, if one is aware of the facts and currents of life, that simply because categorization and judgment of the service records of officers are in the hands of senior   officers,   it   is   a   sufficient   safeguard.     There   has   been considerable erosion in the intrinsic sense of fairness and justice 13 in some of the senior officers.  From instances of the conduct of many, some of the senior officers and men in high position, it cannot be said that such thinking on the subject of erosion is not wholly unjustified.  Selection on merits confers wide discretion on the authority making the selection, and in the absence of reasons there would be no objectivity, and the members of the State Civil Service might receive discriminatory treatment by the Selection Committee.     On   these,   among   other   things,   he   prayed   for dismissal of the appeal. 8. This Court in the case of   R. S. Dass vs Union of India (supra)   has   observed   that  in   order   to  rule   out  any   grievance, actual or fancied, some objective basis for categorisation in the manner indicated should be laid down.  If such objective basis is made   known,   and   after   categorisation   the   selection   of   junior officers  in  preference   to   senior   officers   is   made,   the   Selection Committee need not state reasons, and the same would not be violative   of   the   canons   of   justice.     In   order   to   ward   off   any suspicion in the minds of the candidates, this Court suggested to the government and the authorities concerned that there should be some basis for the categorisation of the officers, and such basis should be objective and not merely subjective evaluation, 14 and furthermore such basis should be formulated in the form of guidelines.   Pursuant to such observations made by this Court, the   Central   Government   framed   guidelines   which   have   to   be followed by the Selection Committee and the UPSC.  The relevant parts of the Guidelines, as on 12.03.2008, are as under: “2.1 For preparing the Select Lists, the crucial date for reckoning the eligibility of officers is taken with respect to the first day of the “year” as defined under Regulation 2(1)(l) of the IAS (Appointment and Promotion) Regulations, and which is presently the calendar   year.     The   year   in   which   the   Selection Committee   actually   meets   {i.e.   SCM   year}   is   co­ terminus with the definition under Regulation 2(1)(l). Further, in these Guidelines, while reference is made to   the   provisions   of   the   IAS   (Appointment   by Promotion) Regulations, the corresponding provisions of   the   IPS  &  IFS   Regulations   would   be   applicable while   preparing   the   IPS   &   IFS   Select   Lists respectively.  2.2 As   per   the   provisions   of   the   Promotion Regulations, where year­wise Select Lists are being prepared   by   the   Selection   Committee,   the   crucial date for determining the eligibility of the officers is st taken as on 1   January of the Select List year and the notional due date for preparing the Select List of st an   earlier   year   is   taken   as   31   December   of   that Select   List   year   for   reckoning   the   availability   of eligible officers.   For the Select List of the current year, the availability of eligible officer is reckoned on the date of the Selection Committee Meeting.  2.3 In   accordance   with   Regulation   5(4)   of   the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee has to classify the eligible officers as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ or ‘Unfit’ as the case may be on an 15 overall  relative   assessment  of   their   service  records (i.e. ACRs and the documents kept therein by the competent authority).  For making an overall relative assessment, the committee will not depend solely on the   grading   recorded   by   the reporting/reviewing/accepting   authority   but   will make   its   independent   assessment   of   the   service records of the eligible officers as per the procedure indicated below.  3.1 The Selection Committee would go through the service records of each of the eligible officers, with special   reference   to   the   performance   of   the   officer during   the   last   five   years,   preceding   the   year   for which   the   Select   List   is   prepared   and   after deliberation   will   record   the   assessment   of   the Committee in the Assessment Sheet comprising the Assessment Matrix [Officer x Year­wise assessment] and   the   column   for   Overall   Assessment   of   the officers.  3.2 As the crucial date for preparation of the Select st List is 1  January of the year of the Select List, the st ACRs upto the year ending 31  March (where ACRs st are   written   on   a   financial   year­wise   basis)   or   31 December (where ACRs are written on calendar year­ wise   basis)   of   the   year   preceding   the   year   of   the Select List are to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.  4.1 The   Selection   Committee   will   go   through   the records   of   the   eligible   officers   and   make   their assessment after deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in the various columns recorded by   the   Reporting/Reviewing   Officer/   Accepting Authority in the ACRs for different years and then finally arrive at the classification to be assigned to each officer.   The Selection Committee would take into   account   orders   regarding   appreciation   for   the meritorious   work   done   by   the   concerned   officers. Similarly it would also keep in view orders awarding 16 penalties or any adverse remarks communicated to the officer, which, even after due consideration of his representation, have not been completely expunged.  4.2 The   Selection   Committee   would   not   be   guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded   in   the   ACRs   but   would   make   its   own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs because   sometimes   the   overall   grading   in   an   ACR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes.   Further, if the Reviewing Authority or the Accepting Authority, as the case may be, has differed from the assessment made by the reporting officer or the Reviewing Authority, as the case   may   be,   the   remarks   of   the   latter   authority should be taken as the final remarks for the purpose of   assessment   provided   it   is   apparent   from   the relevant entries that the higher authority has come to a   different   assessment   consciously   after   due application of mind.  If the remarks of the Reporting Officer,   Reviewing   Authority   are   complementary   to each other and does not have the effect of overruling the other, then the remarks should be read together and   final   assessment   made   by   the   Selection Committee as indicated in para 4.1.  This is also in accordance with the DPC guidelines of DOP&T, as contained in its OM No. 22011/5/86­Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 as amended from time to time.  4.4 While   finalising   the   Overall  Assessment   of   the officers [para 3.1 above refers], an officer shall be graded as: A. “Outstanding”,   if   in   the   opinion   of   the Selection Committee, the service records of the officer   reflect   that   he   is   of   outstanding   merit possessing   exceptional   attributes   and   abilities and these characteristics are reflected in at least four of the ACRs for the last five years including the ACR for the last year (i.e. upto the preceding year   for   which   the   Select   List   is   prepared) provided he is graded at least “Good” in the ACR 17 of the remaining year.   While grading an officer as   “Outstanding”,   the   following   indicative guidelines would be observed.  (i) Whilst the overall grading in the ACRs will have   its   relevance,   however,   in   order   to have   a   final   view,   it   will   be   essential   to carefully   peruse   and   assess   all   the individual attributes/columns in the ACRs like, Work Performance, Targets Achieved, Supervision,   Managerial   capabilities, personality traits etc. before the Committee decides to grade an officer as ‘Outstanding’. (ii) Thus, there should be an in­depth analysis of the performance of the officer before he is rated as ‘Outstanding’.   There should also be   consistency   in   the   grading   given   by different Committees in different years.  (iii) Considering   the   fact   that   such ‘Outstanding’   officers   are   going   to supersede other officers, there is a greater need to ensure that such an officer has met the   stringent   norms   of   being   graded   as ‘Outstanding’.     For   such   purposes,   the ACRs   of   the   concerned   officer   should elaborate   his   significant   achievements   or exceptional nature of work in the areas of law   and   order,   disaster   management, implementation   of   developmental   schemes etc.  (iv) Postings are not within the competence of an   officer   for   which   he   ought   not   to   be discriminated.     However,   the   Committee may   also   like   to   examine   the   various positions   that   such   ‘Outstanding’   officers have   occupied   and   the   nature   of   duties 18 performed   by   him   over   the   years   in   the process of assessing the officer.  B. “Very   Good”,   if   in   the   opinion   of   the Selection Committee, his ACRs reflect that the officer   has   done   highly   meritorious   work   and possesses   positive   attributes   and   these characteristics are reflected in at least four of the last five ACRs (i.e. upto the preceding year for which the Select List is prepared) provided he is graded   at   least   “Good”   in   the   ACR   of   the remaining year.  C. “Good”,  if in  the   opinion  of  the   Selection Committee, the service records reflect that the officer’s performance is generally satisfactory and he   is   considered   fit   for   promotion   and   those characteristics are reflected in each of the ACRs for the last five years (i.e. up to the preceding year for which the select list is to be prepared). D. An officer may be categorised as “Unfit” if his   reports   are   lacking   any   positive   merit   or whose performance is not generally satisfactory or if there are entries in some of the latest ACRs which   adversely   reflect   on   his   suitability   for promotion   of   if   the   ACRs   contain   orders   of penalty   which   in   the   opinion   of   the   Selection Committee   would   render   the   officer   unsuitable for promotion.” Paras 2.1 and 2.2 of the Guidelines are relating to the fixing st of crucial dates for determining the eligibility of the officers i.e. 1 January of the select list year.  Para 2.3 declares that the overall relative   assessment   will   not   solely   depend   on   the   grading 19 recorded   by   the   Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting   Authority,   but the   Selection   Committee   will   make   its   own   independent assessment of the service records.  Para 3.1 deals with scope of assessment.     The   Selection   Committee   will   consider   the performance of each of the officers, i.e., service records during the last five years, preceding the year for which the selection list is prepared.  Para 3.2 states that as the crucial date for reckoning st the eligibility of the officers is 1  January of the select list year, st the Annual Confidential Reports up to the year ending 31  March of the year preceding the year of selection list are to be taken into account.  Para 4.1 prescribes the procedure for assessment. The said guideline mandates that the Selection Committee shall go through all the relevant records and make its assessment after deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in various columns   in   the   Annual   Confidential   Reports,   and   then   finally arrive at the conclusion.   Para 4.2 specifies that the Selection Committee would not be guided merely by the overall grading in the   Annual   Confidential   Report,   but   would   make   its   own assessment on the basis of all entries in the Annual Confidential Report, because sometimes the overall grading in an ACR may be inconsistent   with   the   grading   under   various   parameters   or 20 attributes.  This virtually means that the Selection Committee will not act as a post office but will take a decision on due application of   mind.     Para   4.4   mentions   the   overall assessment/categorisation   of   officers.     It   states   that   while finalising the overall assessment of the officers as per para 3.1, an officer shall be graded as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” and “Unfit”.   The para states in detail as to how such grading should be assigned, and on what basis.   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   jointly   prescribe adequate procedure and they form a complete code in themselves. In accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and Guidelines,   the   Selection   Committee,   presided   over   by   the Chairman/Member of the UPSC, makes a list for the selection of SPS Officers for promotion to the IPS.    As per Regulation 5(1) of the   Regulations,   the   number   of   members   of   the   SPS   to   be included in the Select List   of a particular recruitment year for promotion to the IPS, is determined by the Government of India (Ministry   of   Home   Affairs)   in   consultation   with   the   State Government   concerned,   keeping   in   mind   the   number   of 21 st substantive vacancies as of 1  January of the year the Selection Committee meets. Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to the UPSC along with the Seniority List, an Eligibility List (up to a maximum of three times the number of vacancies) of the   SPS   Officers,   Integrity   Certificates,   certificates   regarding disciplinary/criminal   proceedings,   certificates   regarding communication of adverse remarks, details of penalties imposed on the eligible   officers  etc.  and   complete   ACR   dossiers  of   the eligible officers. On receipt of the afore­mentioned records from the State Government, the UPSC places such records before the Selection Committee when the Selection Committee meets for selection for the   recruitment   year.     In   accordance   with   the   provisions   of Regulation   5(4)   of   the   Regulations,   the   Selection   Committee classifies   the   eligible   SPS   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, the Selection Committee prepares a list as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations by including the required number of names first from the officers finally   classified   as   “Outstanding”,   then   from   amongst   those 22 similarly classified as “Very Good” and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as “Good”.   As per the provisions of Regulations 6 and 6A, the State Government and the Central Government are required to furnish their observations on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.  After taking into consideration the observations of the State Government and the Central Government and the requisite records received from the State Government or the Central Government, the Commission will take a final decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee   with   or   without   modifications   in   terms   of   the provisions of Regulation 7.   Appointments to the IPS are made from the select list by the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs).     From   the   afore­mentioned,   it   is   clear   that   complete procedure is prescribed for selection and appointment to the IPS cadre from the SPS. 10. As   mentioned   supra ,   it   is   the   contention   of   the   first respondent that the Selection Committee ought to have graded her   as   “Outstanding”   or   at   least   “Very   Good”,   on   an   overall relative assessment of her service records, and consequently she would have been selected for the year 2008.   It is her further contention   that   on   a   comparative   assessment   of   her   service 23 records with those of the private respondents, who were junior to her, she could not have been excluded from the selection list as her service records are better than those of almost all of them. Thus,   according   to   her,   the   Selection   Committee   has   acted expressly in an arbitrary manner in the said process of selection by superseding the first respondent. 11. The CAT and the High Court have virtually assessed the performance of the first respondent afresh, mainly taking into account   the   service   records   for   the   period   from   1.4.2003   to 31.03.2008, and have directed the official respondents to appoint her to the IPS by notionally treating such appointment with effect from the date of notification, i.e., with effect from 5.5.2009 by giving   her   appropriate   place   of   seniority   amongst   the   private respondents. 12. In   our   considered   opinion,   the   error   that   crept   into   the findings of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, was on account   of   the   basic   fact   that   they   erred   in   not   properly appreciating   the   span/scope   of   selection   by   a   Selection Committee. For the purpose of consideration of a candidate for selection  to  the   IPS  in  respect  of  the   select  list  of   2008,  the Annual Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008 could 24 not have been taken into account by the Selection Committee, as observed by the CAT and the High Court.  As per para 3.1 of the Guidelines, the assessment of the eligible officers is with special reference to the performance of the officer during the last five years, preceding the year for which the select list is prepared. As the crucial date for determining the eligibility of the officers is st taken 1  January of a particular year for which the selections are being   made,   the   Annual   Confidential   Reports   upto   the   year st ending 31  March of the year preceding the year of selection list are to be taken into account as per  para 3.2 of the Guidelines. In the matter on hand, the selection list was to be prepared for the year 2008.  Thus, the crucial date for reckoning the eligibility st of   the   officers   in   the   matter   on   hand   is   1   January,   2008. Accordingly,   the   Annual   Confidential   Reports   upto   the   year st ending 31  March, 2007 i.e., the year preceding the year of the selection list, are to be taken into account.  As mentioned  supra , the   Selection   Committee   will   consider   the   performance   of   the officer   i.e.,   the   service   records   including   the   last   five   years, preceding the year for which the selection list is to be prepared as per para 3.1 of the Guidelines.   Accordingly, only the Annual st Confidential   Reports   of   five   years   upto   the   year   ending   31 25 March, 2007 are relevant i.e. Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 needed to be taken into account at the time of selection.   The same was being done by the Selection Committee in the matter on hand.  Hence, no fault can be found. It seems that the CAT, as well as the High Court, has misdirected in   coming   to   the   wrong   conclusion   that   Annual   Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008 ought to have been taken into consideration inasmuch as such conclusion is against the Regulations & the Guidelines.  13. The   CAT   and   the   High  Court  have   mainly  relied   on  the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers at the State level while coming to their conclusion. But, in terms of the   Regulations   and   the   Guidelines   framed   therein,   for categorising the officers, the Selection Committee was required to consider the overall relative assessment of the service records of each  of   the   eligible   officers.     The   Selection   Committee   is   not guided merely by the grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports but makes its own assessment on the basis of the quality of the officer as indicated in various columns recorded by the Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authority thereunder.   In other words, the Selection Committee is not required to compulsorily 26 accept the gradings given in the Annual Confidential Reports as it would amount to merely acting as a post office and the whole process would be nothing but a farce.  The grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of a particular year may differ from the grading arrived at by the Selection Committee in respect of the said  Annual Confidential Report depending on all relevant material. 14. Learned counsel for the UPSC, drawing the attention of the Court to the contents of the affidavit filed by the UPSC before the CAT,   submits   that   the   Selection   Committee   also   reviews   and determines   the   overall   grading   recorded   in   the   Annual Confidential Reports to ensure that the overall grading in the Annual   Confidential   Reports   is   not   inconsistent   with   the grading/remarks under various specific parameters or attributes. It   is   brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Court   that   the   Selection Committee takes into account orders regarding appreciation for meritorious work done by the officers concerned and also keeps in view orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks duly communicated to the officers, which even after due consideration of their representation by the suitable forum, are not expunged. The   afore­mentioned   norms   are   uniformly   applied   to   all   the 27 States/Cadres   in   the   matter   of   induction   into   the   All   India Services.  15. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field.  It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of the 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 High Level 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   the   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 28 appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the 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. We are conscious of the fact that the expert body’s opinion may not deserve acceptance in all circumstances and hence it may not be proper to say that the expert body’s opinion is not subject   to   judicial   review   in   all   circumstances.     In   our constitutional   scheme,   the   decision   of   the   Selection Committee/Board of Appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute.  Any other view will have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind oneself of the famous words of Lord Acton “Power   tends   to   corrupt,   and   absolute   power   corrupts absolutely”.  The aforementioned principle has to be kept in mind while deciding such cases.  However, in the matter on hand, it is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the UPSC that the Selection Committee which is nothing but an expert body had carefully   examined   and   scrutinised   the   experience,   Annual Confidential   Reports   and   other   relevant   factors   which   were 29 required to be considered before selecting the eligible candidates for the IPS.  The Selection Committee had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each candidate taking into consideration the various factors as required, and its recommendations were sent to the UPSC.  It is the settled legal position that the Courts have   to   show   deference   and   consideration   to   the recommendations of an Expert Committee consisting of members with   expertise   in   the   field,   if   malice   or   arbitrariness   in   the Committee’s   decision   is   not   forthcoming.       The   doctrine   of fairness,   evolved   in   administrative   law,   was   not   supposed   to convert tribunals and courts into appellate authorities over the decision of experts.  The constraints – self­imposed, undoubtedly – of writ jurisdiction still remain.   Ignoring them would lead to confusion   and   uncertainty.     The   jurisdiction   may   become rudderless.      16. No doubt, the Selection Committee may be guided by the classification   adopted   by   the   State   Government   but,   for   good reasons,   the   Selection   Committee   may   evolve   its   own classification which may be at variance with the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports.  As has been held by this Court in the case of  UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 30 15 , the power to classify as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” is vested with the Selection Committee.   That is a function  incidental  to  the   selection   process.   The  classification given by the State authorities in the Annual Confidential Reports is not binding on the Selection Committee.  Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of grading at   variance   with   that   of   the   State   Government,   reasons   be recorded.   But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confined to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government’s decision.   It is relevant to note that no allegations of malice or bias   are   made   by   the   first   respondent   at   any   stage   of   the proceedings against the Selection Committee or the UPSC. This Court has repeatedly  observed and concluded that 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 or an umpire to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like a Court of Appeal.  This discretion has 31 been given to the Selection Committee only, and the courts rarely sits as a Court of Appeal to examine the selection of a candidate; nor is it the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion.  Since the Selection Committee constituted by the UPSC is manned by experts in the field, we have to trust their assessment  unless  it  is   actuated   with   malice   or   bristles   with mala fides or arbitrariness. 17. In the case of   Union of India vs. A.K. Narula  reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10,  this Court in similar circumstances observed thus:

32

judgments on the  subject, observed thus: “30.  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 overall view of 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 33 amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have 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. ......”

the decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to arbitrariness. We find that it is not a case of pick and choose, but   the   selection   has   been   made   rationally.     The   applicant­ respondent   no.1   was   duly   considered   by   the   Selection Committee.   However, on an overall assessment of her service records, her name was not included in the select list due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with higher grading were available for inclusion in the select list as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations.

is   concerned,   initially   some   disciplinary   proceedings   were pending against her.  Though the disciplinary proceedings were pending,   the   name   of   Srimati   V.   Jayashree,   respondent   no.6 herein, on an overall relative assessment of her service records, was provisionally included in the select list, subject to clearance 34 in the disciplinary proceedings. Since the State Government had certified the integrity of the said officer, in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings ended with a negative report, her name was finally included in the select list. Such procedure was adopted by the Selection Committee in accordance with the first proviso to Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations, which reads thus: “Provided that the name of an officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional if the State Government   withholds   the   integrity   certificate   in respect   of   such   an   officer   or   any   proceedings, departmental or criminal are pending against him or anything   adverse   against   him   which   renders   him unsuitable for appointment to the service has come to the notice of the State Government.” The   proviso   to   Regulation   5(5)   specifically   provides   for inclusion   of   officers   in   the   select   list   against   whom departmental/criminal proceedings are pending, their inclusion in   the   select   list   remains   provisional,   subject   to   clearance   of departmental/criminal   proceedings.     However,   their appointments to the IPS can be made only after their names are made unconditional  in the  select list,  in accordance  with  the second proviso to Regulation 7(4) of the Regulations, which reads thus: 35 “7(4) The Select List shall remain in force till the 31st day   of   December   of   the   year   in   which   the meeting   of   the   selection   committee   was   held with   a   view   to   prepare   the   list   under   sub­ regulation (1) of regulation 5 or up to sixty days from the date of approval of the Select List by the Commission under sub­regulation (1) or, as the case may be, finally approved under sub­ regulation (2), whichever is later:  xxx xxx xxx Provided that where the State Government has   forwarded   the   proposal   to   declare   a provisionally included officer in the select list as “Unconditional”, to the Commission during the period when the select list was in force, the Commission shall decide the matter within a period of forty five days or before   the   date   of   meeting   of   the   next Selection Committee, whichever is earlier and   if   the   Commission   declares   the inclusion   of   the   provisionally   included officer in the Select List as unconditional and   final,   the   appointment   of   the concerned   officer   shall   be   considered   by the Central Government under regulation 9   and   such   appointment   shall   not   be invalid merely for the reason that it was made after the Select List ceased to be in force.” 21. Since the name of Srimati V. Jayashree, respondent no.6 herein, was provisionally included in the select list and was made 36 unconditional   in   the   select   list   after   her   exoneration   in   the disciplinary proceedings, she was appointed in the 2008 batch. 22. Having regard to the entire material on record, we do not find any ground to agree with the reasons assigned by the CAT and the High Court while coming to their conclusion.  The High Court has strangely made out a fresh additional point in favour of the first respondent by observing that, on perusal of the records maintained by the Selection Committee, the High Court was not able to  find   the   grading  of   the   officers   recorded   by   the   State Government.  In other words, the High Court was of the view that since the records submitted before the Selection Committee did not   include   the   grading   of   the   officers   recorded   by   the   State Government,   the   Selection   Committee   did   not   have   an opportunity   to   take   into  account   the   grading   recorded   by   the State Government while coming to its conclusion.   We do not agree with the said observations.   The CAT while deciding the matter   has   taken   into   account   all   the   records   including   the grading of the State Government, which means such records were very   much   available   at   the   time   of   consideration   before   the Selection Committee, as well as at the time of decision by the CAT.  In this context, it is brought to the notice of the Court by 37 the   learned   counsel   representing   the   UPSC   that   after   the selection   process   is   over,   the   Annual   Confidential   Reports maintained by the State Government with the grading given to the officers by the State Government were sent back to the State Government, since those records belong to the State Government; the rest of the records remained with the UPSC.   The records which were available with the UPSC were produced before the High Court.  However, the records pertaining to the grading of the officers   recorded   by   the   State   Government   could   have   been secured by the High Court from the State Government.  Instead of securing records from the State Government, the High Court has strangely observed that such records were not available before the Selection   Committee.     It   is   but   natural   for   the   Selection Committee to send back the records to the State Government after the selection process is ended and appointments are made. 23. In   view   of   the   above,   the   judgments   of   the   CAT   dated 07.04.2010, and the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24.06.2013, stand set aside. 24. Accordingly, the instant civil appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs. 38 …………………………………….….J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR New Delhi; ………………………………………..J. April 13, 2018. [NAVIN SINHA]