Subsequent exoneration does not retrospectively invalidate a finalized promotion select list.

The applicant, a Deputy Conservator of Forests (Non-Cadre), became eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) under the promotion quota after completing the requisite qualifying service as Assistant Conservator of Forests.

Although he was within the zone of consideration for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 IFS Select Lists, the State Government reported that disciplinary proceedings were pending, his integrity certificate had been withheld, and penalties of recovery of ₹64,066 and withholding of two increments had been imposed on 5 August 2011.

The Selection Committee consequently assessed him as “unfit” and did not include him in the Select Lists; certain vacancies remained unfilled.

Subsequently, by order dated 14 July 2017, the State Government set aside the penalties and fully exonerated him.

The applicant sought review of the Selection Committee’s assessment and retrospective inclusion in the Select Lists, contending that his exoneration constituted a material change in his service record under the UPSC Guidelines dated 28 December 2005.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the absence of any provision for retrospective grant of an integrity certificate and the fact that the relevant Select Lists had already been prepared, approved and acted upon.

1. Whether the applicant’s subsequent exoneration and setting aside of the penalty entitled him to retrospective reconsideration or review of the IFS Select Lists for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014.

2. Whether the Selection Committee was required to reassess the applicant when the relevant Select Lists had already been prepared, approved by the UPSC and acted upon, but the penalty was subsequently annulled.

3. Whether the applicant could claim an integrity certificate with retrospective effect for the relevant years after he had not been cleared during the period when the Select Lists were prepared.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, and Regulations 5(2) and 9, governing consideration and appointment of State Service officers to the IFS.

Under the UPSC Guidelines dated 28 December 2005, an officer facing pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings or lacking an integrity certificate may be included provisionally if otherwise suitable; however, the Promotion Regulations do not incorporate the ordinary “sealed cover” or “not yet fit” procedure applicable to departmental promotions.

The Guidelines further state that the Promotion Regulations contain no provision for suo motu review of a Select List already prepared, approved and acted upon, though review may be undertaken pursuant to judicial directions or to correct procedural irregularity or revise seniority.

The Tribunal considered Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 396, on the principle that consequential actions may fall when the foundational order is set aside, but distinguished its application in the present context.

It also relied on R. Rajendran v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 20313/2009, which held that an integrity certificate must be issued during the relevant period and cannot ordinarily be granted retrospectively after acquittal or subsequent clearance.

The Tribunal distinguished T.C. Thyagraj v. Union of India, O.A. No. 180/569/2022, as involving materially different circumstances concerning modification of a penalty and alleged double jeopardy.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s exoneration occurred on 14 July 2017, after the Selection Committee had assessed him and after the relevant Select Lists had been notified; it also occurred after the validity period of the Committee’s recommendations had expired.

Although the penalty was later annulled, the applicant had not possessed the requisite integrity clearance during the relevant selection period, and the governing Regulations did not provide for retrospective issuance of such clearance or automatic reopening of a concluded Select List.

The Tribunal found no procedural irregularity, revision of seniority, or other circumstance warranting a Review Selection Committee under the UPSC Guidelines.

Applying R. Rajendran, it concluded that subsequent exoneration could not retrospectively cure the absence of an integrity certificate during the relevant years.

The principle in Badrinath was not treated as requiring review in the absence of a legally available mechanism for reopening the selection process.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.