UNION PUB.SERVICE COMMN. Vs NASEER-UD-DIN WANI .
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-007099-007099 / 2011
Diary number: 36804 / 2009
Advocates: BINU TAMTA Vs
ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA
CA NO. of 2011 @ SLP(C) 33234 of 2009 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7099 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 33234 OF 2009]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NASEER UD.DIN. WANI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. We are not inclined to go into the larger issues
raised by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants with regard to the correctness or
otherwise of the orders of the Tribunal or of the High
court in the light of the limited relief that we feel
should be granted to the appellants. The two issues
raised by the appellants are that the orders of the
Tribunal and ipso facto the order of the High Court went
far beyond the scope of justified judicial interference
inasmuch that a re-assessment of the merit of respondent
No. 1. vis-á-vis the other candidates had not been made
CA NO. of 2011 @ SLP(C) 33234 of 2009 2
by a competent authority and a direction had straight-
away been made giving him appointment to the IPS Cadre
with effect from 1996 whereas the appellant UPSC had made
his allotment from the year 1997. We notice from the
Original Application filed by the respondent before the
tribunal that the primary prayer made by him was that the
State Government should re-write his Appraisal Reports
for the year 1998-99 by reviewing the decision of the
accepting Authority and to make the gradation on the
basis of the remarks written by the initiating officer
and on that basis re-consider his year of allotment to
the IPS Cadre. It will be seen, therefore, that the
corner stone of the respondent's case was his APRs should
be rewritten and upgraded so as to make him eligible for
allotment from the year 1996 as the Reviewing Authority
had downgraded his ACR for the year 1998-99 from “very
good” to “good but slow”. As already indicated, the
Tribunal and the High Court have gone far beyond the
prayer and directed that he be given allotment from the
year 1996 which to our mind should have happened only
after the State Government had reviewed the APRs and
awarded a higher gradation for the year 1998-99.
4. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate,
in the circumstances, that the matter should be referred
to the State Government so as to enable it to make a re-
CA NO. of 2011 @ SLP(C) 33234 of 2009 3
assessment of the respondent's grading. We, accordingly,
request the State Government to take a decision thereof
within two months from the date a certified copy of the
order is supplied to the Chief Secretary to the State
Government. In case, the re-appraisal results in an
upgradation of the respondent's APR, the appellant UPSC
would once again (and in that eventuality alone) put the
matter before the Selection Committee which would take a
decision within four months thereafter as the respondent
is left with only about 1½ years of service.
5. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of
the Tribunal and the High Court. Disposed of.
..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI AUGUST 11, 2011.