REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4626 OF 2009

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                ...Appellant

VERSUS

JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS           …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4628 OF 2009

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  impugned  judgment  dated

17.04.2008 passed by the High Court  of  Madras in  Writ  Petition

No.33696 of  2007 in and by which the High Court set  aside the

order of the Tribunal and directed the appellants and Union of India

(DoPT) to convene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the

promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the

year 2004 and promote the first respondent herein to the IAS from

the date when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential

benefits.   

2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-

1

A meeting of the Selection Committee for promotion to the IAS

of  Tamil  Nadu Cadre for  the year  2004 was held on 18.12.2004

against three vacancies as determined by the Central Government.

The  name  of  the  first  respondent  was  considered  by  the  said

Committee along with the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5.  The

position in the Eligibility List (EL), Selection List (SL) and the overall

relative assessment (ORA) as assigned by the Selection Committee

in  respect  of  the  first  respondent  vis-à-vis  that  of  the  officers

included in the Select List are as under:-

Year Respondent No.1’s Position

Name & Position of Selected Officers

SL 2004 Name EL ORA SL Vacancy: 03 In EL: S.No.04 TK Ponnusamy* 01 Very Good 01 Size of SL: 03 ORA: Good N Mathivanan 02 Very Good 02 Zone of Consideration: 09 In SL: Not included Smt. R. Vasuki 03 Very Good 03

*Included  provisionally  subject  to  clearance in Criminal Proceedings pending against him and grant of Integrity Certificate by the State Government.

The first respondent was duly considered for promotion in the year

2004 and assessed as “Good” for that year.  However, on the basis

of overall relative assessment, the first respondent’s name could not

be included in the Select List of 2004 due to lower grading and also

due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. Respondent

Nos.4  and  5  who  were  included  in  the  Select  List  have  been

appointed  by  the  Government  of  India  by  Notification  dated

29.04.2005.

2

3. Aggrieved  by  his  non-appointment  to  the  IAS,  the  first

respondent  filed  OA  No.749  of  2006  before  the  Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench.  The said application

was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2007 holding

that  the  first  respondent’s  name  was  included  by  the  State

Government in the list of officers eligible for consideration for the

year 2004 and accordingly, the Selection Committee considered the

first respondent’s ACRs and made a relative assessment of all the

officers  under  consideration.   The  Tribunal  pointed  out  that  the

Selection Committee makes its  own assessment  on the basis of

entries made in the various columns and after discussion within the

Committee,  finally  arrives  at  a  classification  “Outstanding”,  “Very

Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” to be assigned to an officer. Finding no

irregularity  by  the  Selection  Committee  in  making  the  relative

assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the first

respondent. The first respondent then filed review application in RA

No.27  of  2007  in  OA  No.749  of  2006  seeking  review  of  the

Tribunal’s order dated 31.08.2007 and the said review petition came

to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007.   

4. Aggrieved  by  the  dismissal  of  his  application,  the  first

respondent filed writ petition in WP No.33696 of 2007.  The High

Court held that the Tribunal by its order dated 26.06.2002 directed

3

for fixation of the first respondent’s seniority in the cadre of District

Revenue Officer; but the seniority of the first respondent was not

refixed within a reasonable time by the State Government and the

first respondent’s seniority was refixed vide G.O.Ms. No.924 dated

05.09.2005 with a long and unexplained delay of 39 months which

is  unfair  and  thus,  has  caused  much  prejudice  to  the  first

respondent since in the meantime his juniors namely respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS. The High Court also held

that as per Regulation 5(5), the classification of an individual by the

Selection  Committee  is  very  crucial  and  for  the  year  2003,  the

overall assessment of the first respondent had been adjudged as

“Very Good” by the Committee; whereas the overall assessment of

the first respondent pertaining to Select List of 2004 was just “Good”

and there was no reason whatsoever as to why suddenly the first

respondent has been down-graded in his overall rating.  The High

Court also pointed out that for another person by name Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy  who  was  rated  “Unfit”  in  2003,  was  rated  as  “Very

Good” in 2004 and there is no reason for such sudden hike in the

classification/overall rating of Shri T.K. Ponnusamy.  The High Court

held that when T.K. Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was

pending, was preferred over the first respondent for inclusion in the

Select List,  the same cannot be appreciated. The High Court set

4

aside  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  by  holding  that  the  Selection

Committee and the Tribunal failed to assess all the aspects of the

case  in  their  proper  perspective  and  directed  the  appellant  and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to convene a Selection Committee Meeting

for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for the year 2004 and

promote the  first  respondent  to  the  IAS from the  date  when his

juniors were promoted with all the consequential benefits.

5. Being aggrieved, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

and the Government of Tamil Nadu have preferred these appeals.

When the appeals were taken up for hearing, it was brought to the

notice of  this Court  that the first  respondent has been dismissed

from the service vide G.O.Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011 on the

allegation of possession of disproportionate assets and also on the

ground of his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.37 of 2008

registered against  him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit,

Trichy.   

6. Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing

for  the  first  respondent  submitted  that  the  first  respondent  has

challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 26.11.2011 by

filing a writ petition in WP No.28724 of 2011.  It was stated that the

High Court has quashed the said dismissal order dated 26.11.2011

and  the  matter  has  been  remanded  back  to  the  authorities  for

5

consideration  afresh.  Since  the  above  G.O.Ms.  No.1125  dated

26.11.2011 is a subsequent event, we have considered the present

appeals independently on its own merit.

7. Assailing  the impugned judgment,  Ms.  Binu Tamta,  learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-UPSC submitted that the High

Court erred in holding that had the first respondent’s seniority been

fixed within reasonable time, the first respondent would have been

promoted to the IAS.  It was further submitted that the mere fact that

the first  respondent was eligible and there was no case pending

against him does not  ipso facto imply that his name should have

been  included  in  the  Select  List.   The  learned  counsel  further

submitted that the selection from the State Civil Service Officers to

IAS is  strictly  on  the  basis  of  merit,  ability  and  suitability  of  the

candidates and seniority is considered only where merit, ability and

suitability are approximately equal.  Placing reliance upon UPSC v.

K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15, the learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the Selection Committee can evolve its

own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given

in  the  ACRs  and  the  High  Court  could  not  have  faulted  the

classification of the first respondent for the year 2004 as “Good”.

The learned counsel  further  submitted that  inclusion of  Shri  T.K.

Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was pending in the Select

6

List in terms of Regulation 5(5), was only provisional and the same

could not have been faulted by the High Court.

8. Reiterating  the  above  submissions,  Mr.  Yogesh  Kanna,

learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu contended

that  the  High  Court  was  not  right  in  holding  that  the  authorities

concerned acted with prejudicial attitude and that an illegality was

perpetuated on the first respondent.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent submitted

that  when  the  State  Administrative  Tribunal  by  its  order  dated

26.06.2002 restored the seniority of the first respondent making him

senior  to  respondent  Nos.4  and  5,  the  State  Government

deliberately delayed issuance of the order fixing the seniority of the

first  respondent  and the first  respondent’s  seniority  was fixed by

G.O.Ms.  No.924  dated  05.09.2005  but  in  the  meanwhile,

respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS pursuant to the

Select  List  of  2004  by  the  same  order  G.O.Ms.  No.924  dated

05.09.2005.  It was submitted that the long and unexplained delay

of 39 months in refixing the seniority of the first respondent is unfair

and the same caused serious prejudice to the first respondent.  The

learned  Senior  counsel  further  submitted  that  Regulation  5(2)

stipulates that the Selection Committee shall consider the cases of

Members of the State Civil Services in the order of seniority and the

7

High Court  has rightly held that  the seniority would influence the

process of selection.  It was further submitted that no reasons have

been assigned by the Selection Committee for  down-grading the

first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”.  The learned Senior

counsel submitted that a person with tainted antecedents (Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy) had been rated as “Very Good”; whereas on earlier

occasion, he was found “Unfit”, and there were no valid reasons for

down-grading the first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The

High Court, therefore, rightly held that the findings of the Selection

Committee are vitiated on account of non-application of mind and

rightly issued the directions to the appellants to convene a Selection

Committee Meeting for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS

for the year 2004.

10. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  both  sides  and

carefully perused the impugned judgment and other materials on

record. The point falling for consideration is whether the High Court

was right in holding that the Selection Committee did not follow the

uniform standards in classifying individual officers which has a direct

bearing on their selection to the IAS. Yet another point falling for

consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing the

appellant to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting and

8

promote the first  respondent to the IAS from the date his juniors

were promoted with all consequential benefits.

11. All India Services Act, 1951 has been enacted for the purpose

of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons

belonging to the Indian Administrative Services.  Under Section 3 of

the  said  Act,  the  Central  Government  has  framed  the  IAS

(Appointment  by  Promotion)  Regulations,  1955  (Promotion

Regulations).   In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  said

Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee, presided over by

the Chairman/Member of the UPSC makes selection of the State

Civil  Service  Officers  for  promotion  to  the  Indian  Administrative

Service.  In  Regulation  5(1)  of  the  Promotion  Regulations,  the

number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a

particular recruitment year for promotion to the Indian Administrative

Service of  the State Cadre is  determined by the Government  of

India (DoPT) in consultation with the State Government concerned.

Thereafter,  the  State  Government  forwards  a  proposal  to  the

Commission along with seniority list, eligibility list (three times the

number  of  vacancies)  of  the  State  Service  Officers,  integrity

certificates, details regarding disciplinary proceedings and details of

penalties imposed on the eligible officers etc. and complete ACR

dossiers  of  the  eligible  officers.   When the  Selection  Committee

9

meet for selection for the recruitment year, the above documents

are placed before the Selection Committee in accordance with the

provisions  of  Regulation  5(4)  of  the  Promotion  Regulations.  The

Committee duly classifies the eligible State Civil  Service Officers

included in the zone of consideration as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”,

“Good”  or  “Unfit”,  as  the  case  may  be,  on  an  overall  relative

assessment  of  their  service  records.   Thereafter,  as  per  the

provisions  of  Regulation  5(5)  of  the  Promotion  Regulations,  the

Selection  Committee  prepares  a  list  by  including  the  required

number  of  names  firstly  from  the  officers  finally  classified  as

“Outstanding”, then from amongst those similarly classified as “Very

Good”  and  thereafter,  from  amongst  those  officers  classified  as

“Good”.  The relevant part of the Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) reads as

under:-

“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 Civil Service.”

10

12. While assessing the suitability of the officers for promotion, the

Selection  Committee,  as  per  the  uniform and consistent  practice

followed  in  the  matter  of  induction  to  the  All  India  Services,

examines the service records of each of the eligible officers, with

special reference to the performance of the officers during the last

five  years (preceding the year  for  which the Select  List  is  being

prepared), deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in

the various columns recorded by the reporting/reviewing/accepting

authority  in  the  ACRs for  different  years  and  then  after  detailed

mutual deliberation and discussion, finally arrives at a classification

to be assigned to each officer.

13. While  doing  so,  the  Selection  Committee  determines  the

overall grading recorded in the Confidential Reports (CRs) to ensure

that  the  overall  grading  in  the  CRs  is  not  inconsistent  with  the

grading/remarks  under  various  specific  parameters  or  attributes.

The  Selection  Committee  takes  into  account  orders  regarding

appreciation  for  the  meritorious  works  done  by  the  officers

concerned and also keeps in view the orders awarding penalties or

any adverse remarks duly communicated to the officer, which, even

after due consideration of his representation are not expunged.  The

UPSC after taking into consideration the records received from the

State Government under Regulation 6 and the observation of the

11

Central Government received under Regulation 6A of the Promotion

Regulations, takes a final decision on the recommendations of the

Selection  Committee  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of

Regulation 7 of the Promotion Regulations.  The selection of the

State Civil Service Officers for promotion to IAS is made in a fair

and objective manner on the basis of relevant records and following

the  relevant  Rules  and  Regulations.   The  above  procedure  is

uniformly  followed  for  all  the  States/Cadres  in  the  matter  of

induction to All India Services.

14. Insofar as the present case, the first respondent’s name was

included by the State Government in the list of officers eligible for

consideration  for  the  year  2004.  Accordingly,  the  Selection

Committee  also  considered  the  ACRs  and  made  a  relative

assessment to all the officers under consideration.  The name of the

first respondent could not be included in the Select List of the year

2004  as  the  overall  grading  given  to  him  by  the  Selection

Committee was lower and there were only three vacancies.  Since

the name of the first respondent could not be included in the Select

List  for  promotion  to  the  IAS  Cadre  in  the  year  2004,  the  first

respondent was not considered for promotion.

15. Contention  of  the  first  respondent  is  that  though  Shri  T.K.

Ponnusamy was having criminal case, his name was included in the

12

Select List and when the person having criminal case was included

in the Select List, the name of the first respondent ought to have

been included.  The High Court also held that Shri T.K. Ponnusamy

who was classified  as  “Unfit”  for  the  Select  List  2003 has  been

adjudged as “Very Good” for the Select List 2004 and the sudden

hike in the classification/overall rating of Mr. T.K. Ponnusamy has

been remained unanswered throughout.

16. Of course, Shri T.K. Ponnusamy was having a criminal case;

but as noted above, he was included provisionally in the Select List

2004 subject to his clearance in the criminal case pending against

him and grant of integrity certificate by the State Government and

such an officer who is included in the zone of consideration has to

be considered even if disciplinary proceedings are pending against

him.  We find substance in the contention of the appellant-UPSC

that the Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the

Regulations  which  are  statutory  in  nature  and  the  selection  of

respondent  Nos.2  and  3  does  not,  therefore,  suffer  from  any

violation of statutory rules.

17. Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is strictly on the

basis  of  merit,  ability  and  suitability  of  the  officers.   In  M.V.

Thimmaiah  and others  v.  Union Public  Service Commission and

others (2008) 2 SCC 119, it was held as under:-

13

“21. Now,  comes  the  question  with  regard  to  the  selection  of  the

candidates. Normally, 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 to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee

like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection

Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the

selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine

each candidate and record its opinion…….

……..

36. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, courts normally do not sit as

a court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the Tribunal can be

given this power to constitute an independent Selection Committee over

the statutory Selection Committee.  The guidelines have already been

given by the Commission as to how ACRs to be assessed and how the

marking  has  to  be  made.  These  guidelines  take  care  of  the  proper

scrutiny and not only by the Selection Committee but also the views of

the State Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after

scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central Government

for appointment. There also it is not binding on the Central Government

to appoint all the persons as recommended and the Central Government

can  withhold  the  appointment  of  some persons  so  mentioned  in  the

select list for reasons recorded. ……. This assessment cannot be made

subject of court’s or Tribunal’s scrutiny unless actuated by mala fide.

37. …… The Selection Committee normally abides by the assessment

made  by  the  reporting  officer  and  the  reviewing  authority.  But  the

Selection Committee is not powerless. After reviewing the candidates’

performance,  the  Selection  Committee  can  certainly  make  its  own

assessment. The guidelines which have been issued by the Commission

also enable the Selection Committee to assess the remarks made by the

reporting  officer  or  the  reviewing  officer  and  after  taking  into

consideration  various  factors  like  the  meritorious  work  done  or  any

punishment  or  adverse  remarks  made  or  subsequently  expunged  on

representation can review the assessment about the candidates. Such

14

review of the assessment is fully within the competence of the Selection

Committee …...”

18. As pointed out earlier, the first respondent has been ordered

to  be  promoted  to  the  cadre  of  DRO by  the  order  of  the  State

Tribunal dated 26.06.2002.  But the first respondent’s seniority was

refixed on 05.09.2005 vide G.O.Ms. No.924.  Of course, the first

respondent’s  seniority  was  refixed  by  the  State  Government

subsequent to the Selection Committee Meeting for 2004.  The High

Court held that had the first respondent’s seniority been fixed within

reasonable  time  as  per  the  direction  of  the  Tribunal,  the  first

respondent’s classification/overall rating would have been correctly

assessed by the Selection Committee.  The High Court further held

that  when  a  candidate  of  doubtful  integrity  was  considered,

definitely, the first respondent would have also been considered and

promoted to the IAS and only because of the delayed action of the

State Government or improper action of the Selection Committee,

the prospect of the genuine candidate should not be put at stake.

With  those  findings,  the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  first

respondent has been victimised for the simple reason that he has

approached the legal forum for redressal of his genuine grievances.

19. The  learned  Senior  counsel  for  the  first  respondent  has

reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the High

15

Court rightly observed that non-fixation of seniority as directed by

the Tribunal within a reasonable time has prejudicially affected the

case of the first respondent in getting his promotion.  The learned

Senior counsel submitted that as per Regulation 5(2), for inclusion

in  the  Select  List,  the  Committee  shall  consider  the  cases  of

members of State Civil  Service in the order of seniority and only

because  of  delay  in  refixation  of  the  seniority,  name of  the  first

respondent could not be included in the Select List.   

20. We  find  no  merit  in  the  above  contention  of  the  first

respondent that his seniority would have enabled his name to be

included in the Select List.  As discussed earlier, gradation is made

by the Selection  Committee on the  merits  based on the  relative

assessment.  Seniority would become relevant only when the merit

of  the  candidates  is  equal.   Observing  that  the  seniority  is

considered only where merit, ability and suitability are approximately

equal, in R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC

617, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“18. The  amended  provisions  of  Regulation  5  have  curtailed  and

restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it has 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 their service

records. After categorisation is made the Committee has to arrange the

names of officers in the Select List in accordance with the procedure laid

16

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.  If  there  are  five  officers  who  fall  within  the  “Outstanding”

category their names shall  be arranged in the order having regard to

their inter se seniority in the State Civil Service. The same principle is

followed in  arranging the  list  from amongst  the  officers  falling  in  the

category of “Very Good” and “Good”. Similarly if a junior officer’s name

finds place in the category of “Outstanding”, he would be placed higher

in the list in preference to a senior officer included in the “Very Good” or

“Good”  category.  In  this  process  a  junior  officer  if  categorised

“Outstanding” or “Very Good” would supersede his seniors. This cannot

be helped. Where selection is made on merit alone for promotion to a

higher  service,  selection  of  an  officer  though  junior  in  service  in

preference to his senior does not strictly amount to supersession. 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 right to promotion and if juniors to

him are selected for promotion on merit the senior officer is not legally

superseded.  When merit  is  the criteria  for  the selection  amongst  the

members of  the  service,  no officer  has legal  right  to  be selected for

promotion, except  that  he has only right  to be considered along with

others. In Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 419 this

Court  held that a member of State Civil  Service has no legal right to

promotion, instead he has only right to be considered along with others.

But  assuming  that  appellants/petitioners  stood  superseded  by  the

reason that junior officers to them were included in the Select List, no

reasons were necessary to be recorded in view of the amended statutory

provisions.”

21. Re:  Contention  regarding  down-grading  and  non-

recording of reasons:-  From the UPSC File No.F.6/18/2003-AIS,

dated 24.12.2003, pertaining to the Select List of 2003, the ‘overall

17

relative assessment’ of the first respondent had been adjudged as

“Very  Good”  by  the  Committee.  But,  as  per  UPSC  File

No.F.6/18/2004-AIS dated 18.12.2004 pertaining to the Select List

of 2004, the ‘overall relative assessment’ of the first respondent has

been adjudged just as “Good”.  The High Court held that there was

no reason recorded as to why suddenly the first  respondent has

been  down-graded  in  his  classification/overall  rating.   The  High

Court  has  also  pointed  out  that  Shri  T.K.  Ponnusamy  who  was

classified as “Unfit” for the Select List of 2003, has been adjudged

“Very  Good”  for  the  Select  List  of  2004  which  shows  that  the

Selection  Committee  was  not  following  uniform  standard  in

classifying/overall rating of the assessment of the individual which

has a direct bearing on their selection to the IAS.

22. Power  to  classify  the  candidates  is  the  function  of  the

Selection Committee.  In the process of selection under Regulations

5(4)  and  5(5)  of  the  Promotion  Regulations,  the  Selection

Committee is not required to record reasons by assigning overall

relative assessment in respect of the eligible officers or for selecting

a junior officer, having higher merit, in preference to that of a senior

officer.  In R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC

617,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  when  any  senior  officer  is

superseded,  the  amended  Regulation  5(5)  does  not  require  the

18

Committee  to  record  reasons  for  the  supersession  and  that  the

amended Regulations do not  require the Selection Committee to

record reasons for the supersession of the officers of the State Civil

Service.  

23. After referring to R.S. Dass, in K. Rajaiah, the Supreme Court

held as under:-

“9. We  cannot  also  endorse  the  view  taken  by  the  High  Court  that

consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought

to  have  recorded  reasons  while  giving  a  lesser  grading  to  the  first

respondent.  The  High  Court  relied  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in

National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v.  Dr. K. Kalyana

Raman 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481. Far from supporting the view taken by

the  High  Court,  the  said  decision  laid  down  the  proposition  that  the

function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is

under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is

no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the

reasons. This Court then observed: (SCC p. 485, para 7)

“Even  the  principles  of  natural  justice  do  not  require  an

administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner

to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in

the  absence  of  statutory  requirement.  This  principle  has  been

stated by this Court  in  R.S. Dass v.  Union of India  1986 Supp

SCC 617 (SCC at p. 633)….”

…………

That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so-

called  down  gradation  of  the  first  respondent  for  one  of  the  years.

Legally  speaking,  the  term  “downgradation”  is  an  inappropriate

expression.  The power to classify as “outstanding”, “very good”, “good”

and “unfit”  is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function

incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State

19

Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No

doubt,  the  Committee  is  by  and  large  guided  by  the  classification

adopted by the State Government  but, for good reasons, the Selection

Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance

with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the

instant case in respect of the year 1993-94. Such classification is within

the prerogative of  the Selection Committee and no reasons need be

recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance

with  that  of  the  State  Government,  it  would  be  desirable  to  record

reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power

confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a

legal  requirement  that  reasons should  be  recorded  for  classifying  an

officer at variance with the State Government’s decision.” [Underlining

added]

24. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the case in

hand.   When  the  Selection  Committee  has  given  its  own

classification, the court cannot sit  in appeal over the assessment

made  by  the  Committee  of  experts.   In  Union  Public  Service

Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796, the

Supreme Court held as under:-

“17. The  Selection  Committee  consists  of  experts  in  the  field.  It  is

presided  over  by  the  Chairman  or  a  Member  of  UPSC  and  is  duly

represented by the officers of  the Central  Government and the State

Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion,

when a High-Level  Committee or an expert  body has considered the

merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered

their cases for promotion, it is not open to 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

20

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.” [Underlining added]

25. In the present case, we find that neither the decision of the

Selection Committee nor the decision-making process suffers from

any  arbitrariness.  Since  there  was  down-grading  of  the  first

respondent for the assessment year 2004, the first respondent was

not included in the Select List.  On overall assessment of service

records, the name of the first respondent was not included in the

Select List due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with

higher grading in the Select List were available as per the provisions

of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations.  The High Court was not right

in  holding  that  the  Selection  Committee  has  miserably  failed  to

assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and

that the promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year

21

2004 is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed.  The impugned

judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be

set aside.

26. In  the  result,  the  impugned  judgment  dated  17.04.2008

passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of

2007 is set aside and these appeals are allowed.  Insofar as the

challenge  by  the  first  respondent  to  G.O.  Ms.  No.1125  dated

26.11.2011, the same shall be considered on its own merits without

being influenced by any of the views expressed in this judgment.

………………………..J.                                                                         [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………..J.                                                                 [A.S. BOPANNA]

….………………………..J.                                                                [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi; November 15, 2019

22