# UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA PRIYA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2018] 6 S.C.R. 701
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-04-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-public-service-commission-v-m-sathiya-priya-and-others-32813
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Service Law - Appointment by promotion - Respondent was
appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State - The
names of the officers which were to be considered for appointment
to the IPS included the name of respondent - On an oral
assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee did not
include her in the select list of 2008 - Aggrieved, respondent filed
application before CAT, which was allowed - Judgment of CAT was
confirmed by the High Court - Appellant-UPSC contended that both
CAT and High Court erred in taking into consideration the Annual
Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 - On appeal,
held: The IPS regulations and the guidelines framed therein by the
Central Government are to be applied jointly at the time of making
the selection list - Selection Committee was to 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 the guidelines - As crucial date for determining
the eligibility of the officers is 1st January of the particular year
for which selections are made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto
the year ending 31st March of the year preceding the year of
selection list are to be taken into account as per the Guidelines - In
instant case, the selection list was to be prepared for the year 2008
- Crucial date for reckoning the eligibility of the officers in the
matter on hand was 1st January, 2008 - Accordingly, the Annual
Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March, 2007 i.e.,
the year preceding the year of the selection list, were to be taken
into account - Accordingly, only the Annual Confidential Reports
of five years upto the year ending 31st 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
 [2018] 6 S.C.R. 701
701
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
was being rightly done by the Selection Committee in the matter on
hand - Both CAT and High Court misdirected themselves and
considered Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to
31.03.2008 - Further, the Selection Committee constituted by the
UPSC is manned by experts in the field, one have to trust their
assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala
fides or arbitrariness - In the instant case, neither the decision nor
the decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave
mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to
arbitrariness - The selection was made rationally - IPS(Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - regn. 5.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 not have been taken into account
by the Selection Committee. 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 taken
1st January of a particular year for which the selections are being
made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending
31st 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 of the
officers in the matter on hand is 1st January, 2008. Accordingly,
the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 62,346. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
 v.
M. SATHIYA PRIYA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2014)
APRIL 13, 2018
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law - Appointment by promotion - Respondent was
appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State - The
names of the officers which were to be considered for appointment
to the IPS included the name of respondent - On an oral
assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee did not
include her in the select list of 2008 - Aggrieved, respondent filed
application before CAT, which was allowed - Judgment of CAT was
confirmed by the High Court - Appellant-UPSC contended that both
CAT and High Court erred in taking into consideration the Annual
Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 - On appeal,
held: The IPS regulations and the guidelines framed therein by the
Central Government are to be applied jointly at the time of making
the selection list - Selection Committee was to 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 the guidelines - As crucial date for determining
the eligibility of the officers is 1st January of the particular year
for which selections are made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto
the year ending 31st March of the year preceding the year of
selection list are to be taken into account as per the Guidelines - In
instant case, the selection list was to be prepared for the year 2008
- Crucial date for reckoning the eligibility of the officers in the
matter on hand was 1st January, 2008 - Accordingly, the Annual
Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March, 2007 i.e.,
the year preceding the year of the selection list, were to be taken
into account - Accordingly, only the Annual Confidential Reports
of five years upto the year ending 31st 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
 [2018] 6 S.C.R. 701
701
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
was being rightly done by the Selection Committee in the matter on
hand - Both CAT and High Court misdirected themselves and
considered Annual Confidential Reports from 01.04.2003 to
31.03.2008 - Further, the Selection Committee constituted by the
UPSC is manned by experts in the field, one have to trust their
assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala
fides or arbitrariness - In the instant case, neither the decision nor
the decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave
mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to
arbitrariness - The selection was made rationally - IPS(Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - regn. 5.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 not have been taken into account
by the Selection Committee. 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 taken
1st January of a particular year for which the selections are being
made, the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending
31st 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 of the
officers in the matter on hand is 1st January, 2008. Accordingly,
the Annual Confidential Reports upto the year ending 31st March,
2007 i.e., the year preceding the year of the selection list, are to
be taken into account. 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
only the Annual Confidential Reports of five years upto the year
ending 31st 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 IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955
& the Guidelines framed therein by the Central Government.
[Para 12] [719-C-H]
2. 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
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. [Para 13] [720-A-D]
3. 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. When
a High Level Committee or an expert body has considered the
merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 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.
[Para 15] [720-G, H; 721-A-C]
4. 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
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, one have to trust
their assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with
mala fides or arbitrariness. [Para 16] [722-F, G]
5. In the matter on hand, neither the decision nor the
decision making process was actuated with malice, and no grave
mistake was committed by the Selection Committee leading to
arbitrariness. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
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. [Para 19] [724-C-D]
R.S. Dass v. Union of India and Others (1986) Suppl.
SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 ; UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and
Others (2005) 10 SCC 15 ; Union of India v. A.K. Narula
(2007) 11 SCC 10 : [2007] 7 SCR 262 ;
M. V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13 SCR
624 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
 [1987] SCR 527
 referred
Para 7
 (2005) 10 SCC 15
 referred
 Para 16
 [2007] 7 SCR 262 referred
Para 17
 [2007] 13 SCR 624 referred Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10854
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2010.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. for the Appellant.
R. Venkatramani, Sr. Adv., Nitish Gupta, Chandra Prakash,
Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Yashraj Bundela, Radhakrishnan, M. Yogesh Kanna,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Madras in Writ Petition No. 15367 of
2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition
filed by the UPSC 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
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 over-aged, 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'), 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. Thus, all the ten vacancies were filled by the Government
of India including that of respondent no.6 herein.
3. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
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 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 Sub-rule (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:-
5(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare
a list of such members of the State Police Service as are held by
them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of
members of the State Police Service to be included in the list shall
be determined by the Central Government in consultation with
the State government concerned, and shall not exceed the number
of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year
in which the meeting is held, in the posts available for them under
rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The date and venue of the meeting
of the Committee to make the selection shall be determined by
the Commission;
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
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 meet as on the 31st December
of each year.
EXPLANATION:- In case of Joint Cadres, a separate select
list shall be prepared in respect of each State Police Service.
5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list,
the cases of members of the State Police Services in the order of
seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times
the number referred in sub-regulation (1).
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a
State where the total number of eligible officers is less than
three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List
and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible
officers;
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in
the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in
sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded;
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case
of a member of the State Police Service unless on the first day
of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared he
is substantive in the State Police Service and has completed
not less than eight years of continuous service (whether
officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent
thereto by the State Government.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
Provided also that in respect of any released Emergency
Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers
appointed to the State Police Service, eight years of continuous
service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted
from the deemed date of their appointment to that service,
subject to the condition that such officers shall be eligible for
consideration if they have completed not less than four years
of actual continuous service, on the 1st day of January of the
year for which the Select List is prepared, in the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared
equivalent thereto by the State Government.
EXPLANATION: The powers of the State Government under
the third proviso to the sub-regulation shall be exercised in
relation to the members of the State Police Service of constituent
State, by the Government of that State.
5(2)(A)
Deleted.
5(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members
of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years
on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is
prepared:
 Provided that a member of the State Police Service whose
name appears in the Select List prepared for the earlier year
before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has
not been appointed to the service only because he was included
provisionally in that Select List shall be considered for inclusion
in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee, even if he
has in the meanwhile, attained the age of fifty four years.
Provided further that a member of the State Police Service
who has attained the age of fifty four years on the first day of
January of the year for which the Select List is prepared shall
be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for
consideration on the first day of "January of the year or any of
the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting
is held but could not be considered as no meeting of the
Committee was held during such preceding year or years under
item (b) of the proviso to sub-regulation(1)".
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
5(3)(A) The Committee shall not consider the case of such
member of the State Police Service who had been included in an
earlier select list and :
a) had expressed his unwillingness for appointment to the
service under regulation 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 inter-se 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 year wise select lists for
more than one year pursuant to the 2nd 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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
EXPLANATION I: The proceedings shall be treated as pending
only if a charge-sheet 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 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 afore-mentioned 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
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
"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
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 now-a-days, 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
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. 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
year-wise Select Lists are being prepared by the Selection
Committee, the crucial date for determining the eligibility of the
officers is taken as on 1st January of the Select List year and the
notional due date for preparing the Select List of an earlier year is
taken as 31st 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 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.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 Year-wise
assessment] and the column for Overall Assessment of the
officers.
3.2 As the crucial date for preparation of the Select List is
1st January of the year of the Select List, the ACRs upto the year
ending 31st March (where ACRs are written on a financial yearwise basis) or 31st 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
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 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 in-depth 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
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 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 of
crucial dates for determining the eligibility of the officers i.e. 1st January
of the select list year. Para 2.3 declares that the overall relative
assessment will not solely depend on the grading 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
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 the
eligibility of the officers is 1st January of the select list year, the Annual
Confidential Reports up to the year ending 31st 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 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 substantive vacancies as of 1st 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
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. M. SATHIYA
PRIYA AND OTHERS [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 afore-mentioned 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.