# >·· R.S DASS ETC. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1987] 1 S.C.R. 527
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-12-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-s-dass-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-ors-9427
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

:>··
R.S DASS ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,
DECEMBER 11, 1986
A
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JL]
B
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 14 and 16-Members of State
Civil Service (Executive)-Promotion to Indian Admfnistrative
Service-Selection-Merit sole ,basis-Seniority-Whether confers any
legal right on a Government servant for promotion-Whether such right
protected by Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers considered on merit in C
an .objective manner-Non-selection of senior&--Whether amounts to
supersession-Whether Selection CommJltee required to record reasons
fo; non-selection of seniors-Whether non_recording of reasons under
amended Regulation 5(4) and (5) of /AS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations 1955 violative of Arts. 14 and_l6.
D
Natural Justice-Civil Service-Promotion-Selection on Merit
a/one-Eligible officers considered on merit in an objective mannerSeniors not selected-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant-Whether ·opportunity required to be given to the
superseded officer for making representation-Rules of natural justice--
Application of-Depends upon· the setting and the background of statuE
tory provisions, nature of the right affected and the consequences which
may entail.
Civil Service-Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulation, 1955 Regulations 3, 5(4), (5) .& (7), 6 and 8.
and Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954---Rules 4
F
and 8(i}-Members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive)-
Promotion to Indian Administrative Service-Selection-Merit alone to
be considered-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant for Promotion-Whether such right protected by
Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers to be considered in an .objective
manner-Non-selection of seniors-Whether amounts to supersesG
sion-Whether Selection Committee/State Government required to give
reasons for non-selectjon of seniors~ Non-recording of reasons for
supersession-Select List-Validity of-Whether Promotion Regulations 3, 5 and 7 ultra vir.es Recruitment Rule 8(1).
Services-Categorisation of eligible officers as 'Outstanding';
H
527
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 1 S.C.R.
A 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Unfit' for pwposes of Promotion-Basis of
categorisation should be objective and not merely subjective evaluation-Service record-Character roll entries-Importance of.
AdminiStrative action-Power-Vested in a high authorityWhether sufficient safeguard against arbitrariness and misuse of
B power-Presumption-Whether power would be exercised reasonably-Judicial.review-Scope- of Delay in forwarding comments to
Public Service Commission by State Government-Whether constitutes
malafides.
The Central Government under s. 3 of the All India Services Act,
C
1951 framed Indian Administrative Serl'ice (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.
According to Rule 4 recruitment to the Indian Admioistrative Service is
made by: (i) direct recruitment throug!ll competitive examination; (ii)
promotion ofsubstantive members of the State Civil Service (Executive)
and (iii) selection from amongst persons holding posts in substantive
capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, who may not be
D members of the. State Civil Service. Under Rule 8(1) the Central
Governmen_t framed the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 laying down procedure for selection
for appointment to the service by promotion. Regulation 3 provides for
the Constitution of' a Selection Committiee. Regulation 5 provides that
the Committee shall prepare the list of imch members of the State Civil
E Service found suitable for promotion to the service on an over all relative assessments of the service. The State Government shall forward
this list to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records
of the selected members as well as of tl1ose proposed to be superseded
together with the Observations Of the S·tate Government. OD tJlle recommendation of the Committee· for com;

## Text

_Characters 0–39,904 of 92,553. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._

:>··
R.S DASS ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,
DECEMBER 11, 1986
A
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JL]
B
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 14 and 16-Members of State
Civil Service (Executive)-Promotion to Indian Admfnistrative
Service-Selection-Merit sole ,basis-Seniority-Whether confers any
legal right on a Government servant for promotion-Whether such right
protected by Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers considered on merit in C
an .objective manner-Non-selection of senior&--Whether amounts to
supersession-Whether Selection CommJltee required to record reasons
fo; non-selection of seniors-Whether non_recording of reasons under
amended Regulation 5(4) and (5) of /AS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations 1955 violative of Arts. 14 and_l6.
D
Natural Justice-Civil Service-Promotion-Selection on Merit
a/one-Eligible officers considered on merit in an objective mannerSeniors not selected-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant-Whether ·opportunity required to be given to the
superseded officer for making representation-Rules of natural justice--
Application of-Depends upon· the setting and the background of statuE
tory provisions, nature of the right affected and the consequences which
may entail.
Civil Service-Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulation, 1955 Regulations 3, 5(4), (5) .& (7), 6 and 8.
and Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954---Rules 4
F
and 8(i}-Members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive)-
Promotion to Indian Administrative Service-Selection-Merit alone to
be considered-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant for Promotion-Whether such right protected by
Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers to be considered in an .objective
manner-Non-selection of seniors-Whether amounts to supersesG
sion-Whether Selection Committee/State Government required to give
reasons for non-selectjon of seniors~ Non-recording of reasons for
supersession-Select List-Validity of-Whether Promotion Regulations 3, 5 and 7 ultra vir.es Recruitment Rule 8(1).
Services-Categorisation of eligible officers as 'Outstanding';
H
527
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 1 S.C.R.
A 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Unfit' for pwposes of Promotion-Basis of
categorisation should be objective and not merely subjective evaluation-Service record-Character roll entries-Importance of.
AdminiStrative action-Power-Vested in a high authorityWhether sufficient safeguard against arbitrariness and misuse of
B power-Presumption-Whether power would be exercised reasonably-Judicial.review-Scope- of Delay in forwarding comments to
Public Service Commission by State Government-Whether constitutes
malafides.
The Central Government under s. 3 of the All India Services Act,
C
1951 framed Indian Administrative Serl'ice (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.
According to Rule 4 recruitment to the Indian Admioistrative Service is
made by: (i) direct recruitment throug!ll competitive examination; (ii)
promotion ofsubstantive members of the State Civil Service (Executive)
and (iii) selection from amongst persons holding posts in substantive
capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, who may not be
D members of the. State Civil Service. Under Rule 8(1) the Central
Governmen_t framed the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 laying down procedure for selection
for appointment to the service by promotion. Regulation 3 provides for
the Constitution of' a Selection Committiee. Regulation 5 provides that
the Committee shall prepare the list of imch members of the State Civil
E Service found suitable for promotion to the service on an over all relative assessments of the service. The State Government shall forward
this list to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records
of the selected members as well as of tl1ose proposed to be superseded
together with the Observations Of the S·tate Government. OD tJlle recommendation of the Committee· for com;ideration !Jf the Union Public
F
Service Commission and the list so approved shall form the Select List
of the members of State Civil Service and shall be io force until a fresh
list is prepared and approved for the sul>Sequent year. Regulation 8 lays
down that the appointment shall be made by the Central Government
on the recommendations of the State Government in the order in which
the names of members of the State Ci vii Service appear in the Select
G List. In the process of preparing the Select List if the seniors are not
found suitable for promotion and their names in the Select List are not
included and, if junior officers are found suitable for the inclusion of
the names in the Select List, the seniors stand superseded, as the selection is made on merit and not on the ba' is of seniority.
·H
Three members of the Punjab Sll1<te Civil Service (Executive) filed
x
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA
529
-separate petitions under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the Select A
List of 1978 for promotion to the I.A.S. alleging: (i) that they were
eligible for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, but their
names were not included in the Select List while names of officers
Junior to them were included, thereby superseding them in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons; (ii) that the mandatory
8
provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were violated as the
service records of eligible State Officers including the petitioners bad
not been forwarded to the Union Publi_c Service Commission; (iii) that
amendment made in Regulation 5 deleting the provision which required reasons to be recorded for the supersession of a State Officer,
· was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; (iv) that the RegulatiO!lS were
C
ultra vires being inconsistent with the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954; (v) that .one officer bad earned adverse
remarks and yet be was selected; (vi) that important material relating to
the petitioners' service including certificate and letters of recommendations were not considered by the Selection Committee.
A Division Bench of the High Court by a Common Judgement in
Baldev Kapoor's caSe [(1980) 2 SLR 309] dismissed all the petitions holding that the Select List prepared for the year 1978 did not suffer from
any legal infirmity. During the pendency of these. petitions Select List
for the year 1979 was also prepared and the name ofone oftbe petitioners was not included in that list also. Another writ petition challenging
that Select List was also filed on the same grounds and dismissed.
In similar Writ Petitions, the Full Bench of the High Court to
whom the matter was referred for . consideration on the question as to
whether the Select List of 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as reasons for supei:session al senior officers were
not forwarded to the Commission, held that the decmon of the Supreme
Court in Chothia's case [1978) 3 SCR 652] did not affect the position and
the Division Bench's decision in Baldev Kapoor's case (supra) correctly
laid down the law.
Appeals were filed in this Court and during their pendency 15
other officers filed petitions-under Art. 32 challenging the validitY of
Select Lists for the years 1979 and 1980. Some other officers filed similar petitions challenging the validity of Select Lists prepared for the
year 1983. Select Lists for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 were
D
E
F
G
challenged almost on similar grounds.
H
(
A
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 1 S.C.R.
In the present appeals and petitio11s, on behalf of the appellants
and petitioners it was contended: (1) thai: the Select Lists of 1978, 1979,
1980 and 1983 were vitiated as tbe Selection Committee did not record
any reasons in superseding the appellants/petitioners while excluding
their names and including the names of junior officers in the Select
Lists; (2) that the amendment of the Regulation 5(7) was violative of
B
Articles 14 and l 6 as it conferred ungoided power on the Selection
Committee to supersede senior officers; (.I) that the Select Ust prepared
for the year 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) as
reasons recorded by the Selection Comm:itee were not forwarded by the
State Government to the Commission along with record of officers proposed to be superseded; (4) that even if under the Regulations no
C
reasons wer.e necessary to be recorded, principles of Natural Justice
and fair play required that reasons should have been recorded; (5) that
the Select Lists prepared for the years l •ns and 1979 were vitiated on
account of unauthorised participation of ,Sbri I.C. Puri as a Member of
the Selection Committee; (6) that the Re~:ulation 3 and 5 of the Promotion Regulations were violative of Rule !I( I) of the Recruitment Rules
D
inasmuch as the Promotion Regulations impinge upon the State
Government's power to make recommendations for appointment to the
service; (7) that the State Government deliberately delayed its comments on the Select List prepared for 19110 to the Public Service Commission with a view to give undue advantage to the officers included in
the 1979 list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
E
F
G
H
Dismissing the Appeals and Writ Pel itions,
HELD: By the Court
(Mukharji & K.N. Singh, JJ.)
Having regard to the legislative history and the purpose and the
object which was sought to be achieved by the amendments there could
be no mandatory legal obligation on the Committee to record reasons.
Regulation 6(iii) merely required the State Govt. to forward reasons if
recorded for supersession of the officers lo the Commission, b.;t if no
reasons were recorded the State Government was under no legal obllption to forward the same to the Commission and its non-compliance did
not vitiate the Select List. The entire s•rstem of selection has been
changed on account of amendment In the feliutations. [552F-G; D-E]
Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1981] l SCR 904,
followed.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v, UNION OF INDIA
531
~x
Union of India v. Chothia (H.P.) & Ors. etc. etc.,[1978] 3 SCR A
652 and Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] l SCR
797, distinguished •
•
P. C. Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] ! SLR and J.S.
Chopra's case [1980] 2 ILR Punj. 477, approved. Per K.N. Singh, J.
I. I Regulation 5(5) of the Indian
Administ~ative Service
(Appointment by Promotio11) Regulations, 1955 provided that if in the
process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any
member of the State Civil/Police Service the Selection committee shall
record its reasons for the proposed supersession. Regulation 5 was,
B
however, amended by Notification dated 3.1.1977. [S45G]
C
1.2 The amended provisions of Regulation 5 have curtailed and
restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it bas given
primacy to merit. Now. the Committee is required to categorise the
eligible officers in four different categories, namely' "Outstanding"
"Very good", "Good" and "Unfit" on overall relative assessment of D
their service records. After categorisation is made the Committee has to
arrange the names of off"wers in the'Select List in acC'ordance with the
procedure laid down in Regulation 5(5). In arranging the names in the
Select List the Committee has to follow> the inter·se seniority of officers
within each category. In this . process a junior officer if categorised
"Outstanding" or "Very good" would supersede his seniors. [547A·El
E
I.3 Where promotion is made on the basis of.seniority, the senior
has preferential right to promotion against his juniors, but where ·
promotion is made on merit alone, senior officer has no legal Fight to
promotion and if juniors to him are selected for promotion on merit the
senior officer is not legally superseded. [547E-F]
F
2.1 Article 16 ensures equality in matters relating to appointment
and promotion to an office or post under the State. It enjoins State mil
to practise discrimination in matters relating to appointment and promotion. A member of the State Civil Servite eligible for selection for
promotion to the I.A,.S. has right to be considered alongwith others for G
selection for promotion. If eligible officers are considered on merit in an
objective manner, no Government servant has any legal right to insist
for promotion nor any such right is protected by Article 14 or 16 of the
Constitution. Article 16 does not insist that reasons should be recorded
for the non-selection of-a member of a State Servic~. [548A-CJ ·
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987) .l S.C.R.
A
2.2 In the absence of a statutory provision an Administrative
-..,..
Authority is under no legal obligation to rncord reasons in support of its
decision. There is no scope for applying ;~rinciples of natural justice in
matters relating to selection of suitable members of State Service for
promotion to a higher service. [548D·El
B
2.3 Rules of natural justice are 0011 rigid rules. They are flexible
and their application depends upon the setting and the back-ground of
statutory provisions, nature of the right which may be affected and the
consequences which niay entail, in the f•icls and circumstances of each
case. These principles do not apply to all cases and situations. Applica·
lion of these uncodified rules is exclude«il in the interest of administraC tive efficiency and expedition. Sometimes legislation itself excludes the
application of the rules by express provisfon or by implication. [550B·D I
2.4 In the instant case, statutory Regulations do not expressly or
by implication apply the rule of audi alteram partem ip making the
selection. On the other hand the scheme contained . under the Regula0
lions exclude the applicability of the aforesaid rule by implication.
Select List is prepared each year which ordinarily continues to be effective for a year or till the fresh Select List ,j.o;. prepared. If during the
process of selection a senior officer is proposed to be superseded by
virtue of not being included in the Select List, and if opportunity is
afforded to him to make representation and only thereafter the List is
E
finalised, the process would be cumbersome and time consuming. In
this process it will be difficult for the Committee to prepare and finalise
the Select List within a reasonable period of time and the very purpose
of preparing the Select List would be ddeated. Scheme of the Regulations, therefore, clearly warrants exclusion of principles of audi alter am
pariem. No vested legal right of a memh<>r of the State Civil Service who
F
after being considered, is not included in the Select List is adversely
affected. Non-inclusion in the Select List does not take away any right of
a member of the State Civil Service that may have accrued to him as a
Government. Therefore, no opportunity is •ecessary to be afforded to him for
making representation agaimt the~
supersession. [550G-H; 551A-C)
G
A.K. Kraipak & Ors., etc. etc., v. Union of_India & Ors., [1970) I
SCR 457, Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr., [1971) I SCR 791,
Chairman Board of Mining Examination & Anr., v. Ramjee, [1977) 2
SCR 904 and Union of India & Anr., v. Tulsiram Patel etc., [1985) 3
sec 398, relied npon.
H
3.1 The scheme contained in promotion Regulations and the
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA
533
criteria prescribed therein for preparing the Select List do not justify
the apprehension that in the absence of reas0ns there would ·be no
objectivity and the selection would be made in an arbitrary manner
over-looking the claim on a senior officer eligible for promotion to the
Indian Administrative Service. The principal object of the promotion
system as contained in the Regulations is to secure the best possible
incumbents for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service which is
the back-bone ·of the administrative machinery of the country. The
efficiency of the odministralion in the Union as well as in the State
largely depends upon the ·efficiency of the members of the Indian
Administrative Service. Efficient public service is in public interest and
the public interest is best secured if reasonable opportunity for promotion exists for all qualified members of the State Civil Service and only
those who are found efficient and suitable in all respect are promoted.
This object is sought.to be achieved by the Regulations in prescribing
merit as the sole test for promotion. [553B-D]
3.2 In order to judge the merit, the Regulations provide for
categorisation of eligible members of the State Civil Service on the basis
of their service records which are scrutinised by the Committee consisting of high ranking officers of the St_ate Government and the Central
Government. The service records of all eligible officers whose names
are included in the proposed Select List and the records of even those
who are not selected is again scrutinised by the State Government and
A
B
c
D
E
the Union Public Service Commission and only thereafter final shape is
given to the Select List. There are, therefore, adequate checks and
safeguards at different stages by different authorities. The machinery
designed for preparation of Select List under the Regulations for promotion to All India Service, ensures objective and impartial selection.
Where power is vested in high authority, there is a presumption that the
s.une would be exercised reasonably. However, if the selection is made F
on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner, the Courts have ample
power to strike oown the same and that is an adequate safeguard .against the
arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, it cannot he held that in the absence
of reasons the selection would be made arbitrariiy. [S53D-H; 554A-C]
4. There are various methods of selection viz. by competitive
examination, written test-cU01-viva-voce, or by assessment of servke
records. For the purpose of recruitment to the Indian Administrative
Service from amongst the officers of the State Civil Service, latter
method, namely, selection on the basis of scrutiny of service records has
been accepted. [554E-F]
·
G
H
A
B
c
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] l S.C.R.
Parvez Qadirv. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 432, relied
upon.
5.1 There is hardly any scope for a1>plying different standards or
criteria at different times as the service r<ocords, namely, the character
roll entries would indicate the category of the officers as adjudged by
the authority recording annual confidential remarks. In Punjab jhe
authority competent to record annual remarks in the character rolls of
members of the State Civil Service, has been directed to indicate the
category or the officer' e.g. whether t'ile officer is "Outstanding"'
"Very Good" or "Good". Under inst:ructions issued by the Union
Government all the State Governments are following similar pattern in
categorising members of the State Civil :Service in the annual remarks
made in their confidential records. This has brought uniformity in the
character role entries. [SSSG·H; 556A-C]
5.2 Since category of members of State Civil Service is available
in their service records, the Committee has no discretion to disregard
D the same. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission that Regulations 3 and S are discriminatory and th"y violate Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. [SS6C-D]
6.1 The material placed on record leaves no doubt that Shri J.C.
,
Puri designated as Financial Commissioner (Development) was also disE charging the duties and functions of the Development Commissioner.
411
He was, therefore, holding the dual d1arge as no separate post of
Development Commissioner had been sanctioned by the Government.
These facts clearly show that for all purposes Shri Puri was working as
Development Commissioner. As Fina:ocial Commissioner (Development) he was exercising same powers •md discharging same functions
F
which could be performed by a Develo11ment Commissioner, therefore
~
he was competent lo participate in th" deliberations of the Selection
.
Committee. Moreover, at no stage any objection was raised against
functioning' of Shri Puri as a member of the Selection Committee or his
participation in the deliberations. Th1>re is further no allegations or
mala fide or bias against Shri Puri. There is evidence on ...,.;ord to show
G
that recommendations of the Selection Committee coiistituted under
Regulation 3 were unanimous, which were scrutinised by the State
Government and the Union Public Service Commission before the same
were approved. [SS7H; 55&\-C]
6.2 In the instant case, the validi1ty or the recommendations made
H for the preparation of Select List of 1''79 are not vitiated as Shri J.C.
')r·
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA
535
Puri was neither biased against any of the appellants/petitioners, nor A
there was any conflict between his personal interest and duty. Sbri Puri
had no interest in the inclusion or exclusion of any member of the State
Civil Service nor he bad any personal interest in preparing the· List.
There is no 8'1egation of bias or malice against Sbri Puri. His participation in the meeting of the Selection Committee did not '"fnder the Select
List of 1979 illegal. (5588; 559A]
·
B
7. The Central Government has framed promotio!I Regulations
which provide method and manner of Selection. Regulation 3 provides
for constitution of Selection Committee to prepare List of suitable officers in accordance with Regulation 5. The list so prepared is forwarded
> by the State Government to the Union Public Service Commission along C
with the records and the observations of the State Government in
-...
accordance with Regulation 6. Thereafter, the Commission considers
the List under Regulation 7. The Commission shall finally approve the
List received from the State Government with such modification as in
its opinion it may he just and proper and this List forms the Select List
of members of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains in force D
until its review and revision. Regulation 9 lays down that the appoietment of members of State Civil Service shall be made by the .Central
Government on the recommendations of the State Government in the
order in which their names appear in the Select List. These Regulations
do not in any manner impinge upon the powe"I' of the State Government
to make recommendations to the Central Government as c~ntemplateil E
by Rule 8 of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Therefore, Regulations
3,. 5 and 7 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955
are not ultra vires. [559F-H; B]
.8. In the instant case, the Select List of 1979 continued to be
effective till Select List for the year 1980 was finally approved. The
F
officers included in the Select List of 1979 were promoted and
appointed to IAS before the final approval of the Select List for the year
1980. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the validity of their
appointment. The delay made by the State'Government in forwarding
its comments to the Union Public Service Commission with regard to
the 11)80 Li~t did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners as none of G
them was selected for inclusion in 1980 List. Merely because the State
Government forwarded its recommendations with delay is not sufficient
to justify inference that the delay was purposive with a view to grant
undue favour to some of the officers. Since the process of selection,
preparation of Select List and its final approval is time consuming,
sometimes delay may be inevitable. State Government should take
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] l S.C.R.
A
action· well in advance to avoid any delay. If undue delay is caused in
preparation of Select List, it provides occasions for suspicion against
the authorities and it is likely to generate frustration and heart burning
among the members of the State Civil s,ervice which would obviously be
detrimental to public administration. [SliOF; 561A-B]
B
Per Mukharji, J.
I. It cannot be said now-a-days if one is aware of the facts and
currents of Hie that simply because categorisation and judgment of the
service records of officers are in the hands of senior officers is a sufficient safegnanl. There has been considerable erosioo in the intrinsic
C sense of fairness and justice in the "''nior officers by all concerned.
From the instances of cooduct of many., some of senior officers and men
in high position, it cannot be said that such erosion is not only
unjustified. [53'.IA-B]
0
2. In order to rule out any grievance actual or fancied, some
objective basis for the categorisation should be laid down. If such objective basis are made known, the fact that after <:alegorisation, the selectioo of junior officers in preference to senior officers need not state
reasoos and woold not be violative of tt1e canoos of justice but otherwise
there will be room for suspicion anfil that too would not be wholly
unjustified. [S39C]
E
3. It is suggested to the Government and the authorities concerned that there should be some bads for the cate:iorisation of the
officers and such basis should be objfrlive and not merely subjective
evaluation and furthermore such ba••s •hoold be formulated in the
F form of guidelines. [539D I
4. Objectivity in subjective eval 113tion of the worth of the different officers would go a long way to generate a feeling that justice has
been done and unless members of th<: administration feel that justice
has been done to them, the administration cannot become an effective
G ·weapon for social change ushering soci:ol justice. [539D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIIN: Civil Appeal No:-4370 of
1983 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26. 1 I. 1979 of the Pun jab
H
and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 3821of1979.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [MUKHARJI, J.I
537
__,
R.K. Garg, R.S. Dass-in-person, B.S. Khoji, Arun Madar
A
& T .S. Arora for the Appellant's/Petitioners.
G.A. Shah, V.C. Mahajan, Anil Dev Singh, L.K. Gupta, C.V.
Subba Rao, R .. S. Sodhi, G.D. (}upta, A.C. Sharma-in-person, Arvind
Minneha, Inderjit Malhotra, M.S. Dhillon for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by
SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. I· have had the advantage of
reading the judgment in draft to be delivered by my learned brother
K.N. Singh, J. I agree with him that the appeals and the writ petitions
B
herein should be dismissed without any order as to costs. I also resC
pectfully agree with him on the conclusions he· has reached on the
different contentions urged before us in these cases. It is not necessary
to refer to the facts and the issues which have been exhaustively discussep by my learned brother. There is, however, one aspect of the matter
on which I have certain reservations and I would like to express my
views on this aspect so that the Government and the authorities conD
cemed may try to evolve a little more objective basis on that aspect.
As mentioned, the validity of the Select Lists of 1978, 1979, 1980
and 1983 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was
impugned in these matters on the ground that the Committee had not
retarded any reasons for superseding the appellants and/or petitionE
ers. The question of recording of reasons had been· discussed in the
decision of this Court where Select List was quashed on the ground
that the Committee had failed to record reasons in superseding senior
officers. In view of Regulation.5(1) to 5(5) as prevailing at the relevant
time which came up for interpretation in Union of India v. Mohan Lal
Capoor & Others, (1974] 1 SCR 797, this Court quashed the Select List
F
on the ground that the Committee had failed to record reasons in
superseding senior officers. It was held that it was incumbent on the
Selection Committee to have stated reasons in view of the said Regulation in a manner which would disclose as to how the record of
superseded officers was judi;,ed in relation to -the record of those officers who were preferred for selection. This Court reiterated in the
G
context of the said Regulation that there was a mandatory obligation
to record reasons in superseding senior officers, and therefore ·in. the
absence of such reasons the Select List had been vitiated.
Regulation 5 was, however, as noted by my learned brother,
amended by Notification dated 3rd January, 1977 and after the amendH
A
B
c
538
SUPREME COUltT REPORTS
,' [ 1987] l-S.C.R.
ment, Regulation 5(4) and 5(5) wai; altered. It was provided that the
Selection Committee should classify eligible officers as 'Outstanding",
"Very Good", "Good" or 'Unfit" as the case might be on overall
relative assessment of their service record. The Committee was required to categorise officers in four categories on the basis of an overall relative assessment of service record of the officers. After categorisation the Committee was required to place the names of those officers
first on the list who might be categorised as "Outstanding" and thereafter those officers as mentioned aforesajd. Under the amended Regulation if a senior officer is supersed~ed, the amended Regulation 5(5)
does not require the Committee to record reasons for such supersessiori. The new amended Regulation emphasise_d that the merit and
suitability was the governing consideration and seniority played only a
subsidiary role. It was only when merits were roughly equal, seniority
was the relevant determining factor. Regulation 5(5) as it stood prior
to Capoor's case laid emphasis on the role of seniority. This has been
done away with.
D
It is stated on behalf of the respondents that it was felt difficult to
record reasons in the prescribed manner as laid down by this Court in
the said decision and the question was considered by a Conference of
Chief Secretaries in May, 1976 and was further considered. The
Committee recommended that the "ystem of categorisation of officers
for promotion to the higher post »hould be followed in case of All
E
India Service also and thereafter the categorisation as noted above was
introduced in consultation with the State Governments. Indeed the
amended provision Regulation 5 minimised the role of seniority in the
process of seiection and importance and primacy was given to merit.
This indeed is a laudable object and helps in having the best for the
country. It is also true that if selection is made on merit alone for
F
promotion to higher service, selecti,Jn of such an officer though junior
in service in preference to his . senior does not really amount to
supersession. If promotion is made on merit alone, the senior officer
per se has no legal right to promotion and if promotion is made on
merit,. it cannot be said that a senior officer has been superseded. It
has been emphasised that the cat(:gorisation is done on the service
G
record. This has also been emphasifed that such categorisation is done
on the service record including confidential character rolls as maintained by senior officers holding high positions. It is, therefore,
according to my learned brother, sufficient safeguard against arbitrary
categorisation and misuse of power. I have my reservations on this
aspect though I accede the position that in the absence of any other
H practicable solution, this is perhaps a sufficient safeguard and perhaps
(
·-j..'
.... ' .
-
-""' -
R.S.' DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.J
539
a practical way of facing a rather delicate task. It cannot be said now-adays if one is aware of the facts and currents of life that simply because
categorisation and judgment of the service record of officers are in the
hands of senior officers is a sufficient safeguard. There has been considerable erosion in the intrinsic sense of fairness and.justicthn the
senior officers by all concerned. From the instances of conduct of
many, some of senior officers and men in high position, it cannot be
said that such erosion is not only unjustified.
In order to rule out any grievance ~qtua[ or fancied, some objective basis for the categorisation in the n\anner indicated should be laid
down. If .such objective basis are made known, the fact that after
categorisation, the selection of junior officers in preference to senior
officers need not state reasons and would not be ·violative of the
canons of justice but otherwise there will be room for suspicion and
that. too would not be wholly unjustified.
I would therefore like to suggest 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 and furthermore such basis should be formulated
in the form of guidelines. Objectivity in subjecti".e evaluation of the
worth of the different officers would go a long way to generate a feeling
that justice has been done and unless members of the administration
·feel that justice has been done to them, the administration cannot
become an effective weapon for social change ushering social justice . .
,
I, however, hasten to add that in these cases I agree with my
learned brother that justice has been done in accordance with the rules
to the officers concerned and therefore concur with him in the order as
proposed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
SINGH, J: These three Civil Appeals are directed against the
judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by R.S. Das, Mrs. K. Goyal challenging the
validity of the Select List prepared for the year 1978, 1979 for promotion of members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive) to the G
Indian Administrative Service. During the pendency <if these appeals
17 writ petitions were filed before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution by Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh Nagpal and other members
of the Punjab' State Civil Service (Executive) challenging the validity
of Select List prepared for the year 1979, 1980 and 1983, As all the
cases rest upon similar facts and involve common questions of law,
H
540
SUPREME CO\JllT REPORTS
[1987] l S.C.R.
A these were heard together and we consider it necessary .to dispose
them of by common judgment.
R.S. Das, Mrs. K. G_oyal and Baldev Kapoor members of the
Punjab State Civil Service (Executhe) had completed more than eight
years of service and they were eli~:ible for promotion to the Indian
B Administrative Service but their names were not included in the Select
List for the year 1978, while the names of officers junior to them were
included in the Select List. R.S. Das, Mrs. K. Goyal and Baldev
Kapoor filed three separate petitiof!f• before Punjab and Haryana High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of
Select List of 1978. Their grievance was that though they were senior,
C having good service record yet they were superseded by officers junior
to them in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons for the
same. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed all the three
petitions by a common order dated November 20, 1979 rendered in
Baldev Kapoor's [ 1980] 2 SLR 309 ease holding that the Select List
prepared for the year 1978 did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
D During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, another Select List
was prepared for the year 1979 and in that List also the name of R.S.
Oas was not included. He filed another writ petition challenging the
validity of that Select List also almost on the same grounds, that writ
petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench on November 26,
1979. R.S. Das and Mrs. K. Goyal have preferred appeal before this
E Court by special le.ave. During the pendency of these Appels Pritam
Singh and 15 other officers of the State Civil Service challenged the
validity of Select List prepared for the year 1979 and 1980 before this
Court by means of petition~ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Ajit
Singh Nagpal and other officers filed a similar petitions challenging the
validity of Select List prepa~ed for the year 1983. The challenge to the
F
validity of the Select List for the Y''ar 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 are
almost on similar grounds.
Before the High Court S/Shri R.S. Das, Baldev Kapoor and Smt.
K. Goel challenged the validity of the Select List of 1978 on the ground
that mandatory provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian AdministraG
tive Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations> were violated in making the selection as the service records of eligibk"state officers including that of the
petitioners .had not been forwarded to the Union Public Service
Commission and its approval was given without considering the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. Amendment made in
H
Regulation 5 deleting the provisions which required reasons to be
. ..,._,
'
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J .]
54 !
recorded for the supersession of a state officer, was arbitrary and
A
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners further
challenged the vires of the Regulations on the ground of their being
inconsistent with the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment)
Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and inclusion of
name of K.S. Raju was assailed on the ground that he had earned
adverse remarks and yet he was selected. The petitioners further
raised grievance that important material relating to the petitioners'
service including certificate and fetters of recommendations as contained
B
in their service records were not considered by the selection committee. The High Court by a well considered judgment rendered in
Beldev Singh's case (supra) dismissed all the three writ petitions on the
findings that the select list prepared for the year 1978 was in accordance with the regulations and it did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
It appears that validity of the Select List of 1978 was challenged by J..S.
Chopra and other officers of the state civil service before the High
Court under Article 226 of. the Constitution on the same ground which
had already been rejected by the Division Bench in Baldev Kapoor's
case (supra). However having regard to the decision of this Court in
Union of India v. Chothia (H.P) & Ors., etc. etc., [1978) 3 SCR 6S2.
Division Bench referred the matter for consideration to a larger bench
on the question as to whether the Select List was vitiated for the
· non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as 'reasons for the
supersession of senior officers were not forwarded to the Commission.
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the decision of this Court
in Chothia's case did not affect the positiori and the Division Bench
decision in Baldev Singh's case correctly laid down the law.
In the present appeals and petitions learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners as well as Shri R.S. Dass, appellant who
appeared in person argued the case and have made the following
submissions:
(1) The select list of 1978-79, 1980 and 1983 are vitiated on
c
D
E
F
the ground that select committee did not record any
reasons in superseding the appellants/petitioners in excluG
ding their names and including the names of junior officers
in the·select list.·
(2) Amendment of the Regulation 5(7) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 as it confers unguided power on the Selection
Committee to supersede senior officers.
H
' '
542
A
B
c
0
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 1 S.C.R.
(3) The select list prepared for the year 1978 was vitiated
for the non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) as no reasons
were forwarded by the State Committee to the Commission
along with record of offkers proposed to be superseded.
(4) Even if under the Regulations no reasons were necessary to be recorded, principles of Natural Justice and fair
play required that reaso:J should have been recorded.
(5) The select list prepared for the year 1978, 1979 was
vitiated on account of the unauthorised participation of
Shri J.C.