Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.26223 of 2013)

G. MOHANASUNDARAM        … APPELLANT

VERSUS

R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS.         … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High  

Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.5508 of  

2013.  Initially,  the  appellant  herein  challenged  the  

Government  notifications  dated  10th February, 2012  and  13th  

April, 2012 whereby 1st respondent was promoted and appointed  

to  the  Indian  Administrative  Service,  before  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing OA No.249 of  

2012 and the same was allowed by order dated 18th February,  

2013. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the  

said order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Central  

Administrative Tribunal.  

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

Page 2

2

The  appellant  and  the  1st respondent  are  officers  of  

Tamil Nadu State Civil Services. They were considered for  

promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter  

referred to as the “IAS”) against certain percentage of posts  

available for members of the State Civil Service.  

4. On 1st September, 2009, the State of Tamil Nadu prepared  

a  list  of  27  eligible  candidates  for  consideration  for  

appointment against 19 vacancies of IAS for the year 2009.  

The  list  was  sent  to the  Secretary, Union  Public  Service  

Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UPSC”). The name  

of the appellant was included at serial No.26 and the name of  

the 1st respondent was placed at serial No.16 of the said list  

prepared on the basis of seniority list of the State Civil  

Service. In the seniority list of State Civil Service the  

appellant was placed at serial No.59 and 1st respondent at  

serial No.34.  

5. On  4th November,  2009,  the  State  Government  issued  a  

charge-sheet against the 1st respondent under Rule 17(b) of  

the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules  

for certain irregularities committed by him while working as  

Senior  Regional  Manager,  Tamil  Nadu  State  Marketing  

Corporation Ltd. On 3rd February, 2011, the State Government  

prepared a list of 10 eligible candidates for appointment to  

the IAS cadre against the 2009 vacancies. The appellant was  

shown at serial No.9 and 1st respondent at serial No.4. The  

list was forwarded to the UPSC.

Page 3

3

6. On 10th March, 2011, the UPSC sought for clarifications  

and some more information from the State Government. By its  

letter dated 12th April, 2011, the State Government enclosed  

the  Annual  Character  Rolls  (ACRs)  of  all  the  eligible  

candidates,  which  according  to  the  State  Government  were  

valid.  The  State Government  withheld  some  of  the  ACRs of  

certain candidates including the 1st respondent on the ground  

that the ACRs were not valid. The ACRs of the 1st respondent  

pertaining to the period 27th July, 1998 to 10th June, 2002  

i.e., for 5 years alone, were forwarded to the UPSC and the  

ACRs of the 1st respondent for the period from 10th June, 2002  

to 31st March, 2009 were withheld by the State.  

7. On 7th December, 2011, the State Government forwarded a  

list of 13 candidates for promotion to the IAS cadre against  

2 vacancies for the year 2010. The appellant was shown at  

serial No.8 and the 1st respondent at serial No.4. The ACRs of  

all the candidates including the 1st respondent for the period  

26th May, 2006 to 7th January, 2008 were forwarded.

8. The Selection Committee prepared a Select List of 2009  

and  2010  on  27th December,  2011  against  the  respective  

vacancies of those years. The appellant was not selected.  

According to the appellant, though his ACRs were far better  

than the ACRs of other candidates including 1st respondent, he  

was not selected.  

9. A notification dated 10th February, 2012 was issued by  

the  Government  of  India  and  the  selected  candidates  were

Page 4

4

appointed to the IAS cadre for the vacancies of 2009 and  

2010.  

10. The  appellant  having  not  selected/promoted  filed  

Original  Application  No.249  of  2012  before  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench  challenging  the  

notification 10th February, 2012 passed by the Government of  

India. When the matter was pending, on 15th March, 2012 the  

State Government dropped the disciplinary proceedings against  

the  1st respondent  taking  into  consideration  the  enquiry  

report and reply filed by the 1st respondent. By an amendment  

application filed in pending OA, the appellant challenged the  

notification of 13th April, 2012, by which 1st respondent was  

appointed  to the  Indian  Administrative  Service.  The  UPSC,  

State Government  and  1st respondent  filed  their  respective  

replies to which the appellant filed a rejoinder. According  

to the UPSC, the selection was made in accordance with the  

rules and the valid ACRs which were forwarded by the State  

Government. The State Government in its reply justified its  

action in sending only the valid ACRs and the 1st respondent  

disputed the allegation made against him.  

11. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by its  

judgment  and  order  dated  18th February,  2013  allowed  the  

Original  Application  filed  by  the  appellant,  quashed  the  

notification  dated  10th February,  2012  in  so  far  as  not  

including the name of the appellant herein and quashed the

Page 5

5

notification dated 13th April, 2012 by which 1st respondent was  

appointed.  

12. The High Court  at the instance of the 1st respondent  

allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by  

the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench  in  OA  

No.249 of 2012.

13. Learned  counsel  for the  appellant  submitted  that  the  

High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July,  

2013 reversed the well reasoned judgment and order dated 18th  

February,  2013  of  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  

Bench, ignoring the fact that the 1st respondent was facing  

major charges and had adverse entry in the ACRs at the time  

of  selection.  It  was  contended  that  though  ACRs  for  the  

period  from  1st October,  2002  to  31st March,  2009  of  1st  

respondent  were  available  they  were  not  forwarded  by  the  

State Government to the UPSC. According to him in the matter  

of promotion and compulsory retirement from service, entire  

service  record  of  the  officer  concerned  should  have  been  

considered.  

14. Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  further  

contended that respondents acted arbitrarily in not taking  

into consideration the relevant ACRs of the 1st respondent on  

the ground that they were written beyond the time prescribed  

by the State Government.  

15. Learned counsel for the UPSC contended that at time of  

holding Selection Committee meeting for the Select List of

Page 6

6

2009, the State Government forwarded the ACRs stated to be  

valid and duly certified. The meeting was then convened for  

4th December  2009,  however,  when  the  Committee  met  on  4th  

December, 2009, it was observed that certain issues relating  

to  the  validity  of  the  ACRs  of  officers  in  the  zone  of  

consideration  were  required  to  be  resolved  by  the  State  

Government,  and  the  meeting  was,  therefore  deferred.  

Subsequently, when the Select List for 2009 was to be drawn  

up, the State Government forwarded the ACRs vide its letter  

dated 10th March, 2010 along with the validity certificate.  

The meeting was convened on 26th May, 2010 and the Select List  

of 2009 for 19 vacancies was drawn up. The 1st respondent was  

considered  at  serial  No.17  and  his  ACRs  for  the  certain  

period were considered. But since his ACRs for the period  

2003-2004 to 2005-2006 were not available, the Committee in  

accordance with the guidelines considered the ACRs for the  

period 1999 to 2002.

16. Learned counsel for UPSC further submitted that on 31st  

March, 2010, the Government of India determined 7 vacancies  

for the year 2010. The Select List of 2010 was renamed as  

2009A in view of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana regarding overlapping Select List for a particular  

year. The  State Government  forwarded  the  ACRS vide  letter  

dated 3rd February, 2011. On the scrutiny of the ACRs, it was  

found that the ACRs of some of the officers including 1st  

respondent  which  were  furnished  during  the  last  Selection

Page 7

7

Committee  meeting  were  not  furnished  before  the  present  

Selection Committee and the ACRs which were not furnished  

earlier were furnished. The reason for this change was asked  

from the State Government vide letter dated 10th March, 2011  

to which the State Government replied by letter dated 12th  

April, 2011 that the State Government had considered the ACRs  

written  by  the  Reporting  Officer  or  Scrutinizing  Officer  

within a period of 9 months as valid for the Select List 2009  

which  were  forwarded  to  UPSC  considering  the  fact  the  

officers reported upon need not be penalized for no fault of  

theirs. It was further contended that for the Select List  

2009A, the State Government considered that the ACRs written  

by both the Reporting Officer and Scrutinising Officer within  

a period of 6 months are valid, barring certain cases for  

which  ACRs written for the  periods  slightly exceeding six  

months. The matter was once again taken up by UPSC with the  

State  Government  as  the  revision  in  the  time  limit  for  

writing of ACRs with reference to the earlier selection would  

lead  to  anomalous  situation.  The  State  Government  by  its  

letter dated 1st December, 2011 intimated the UPSC that with a  

view to maintain consistency after obtaining orders of the  

competent  authority  it  was  decided  that  the  ACRs  written  

within 9 months may be considered valid for preparation of  

Select List of 2009A and the Officers need not be penalized  

for  no  fault  of  theirs.  The  meeting  of  the  Selection  

Committee was held on 27th December, 2011. In the Select List

Page 8

8

of 2009A, 1st respondent was considered at serial No.4 and he  

was assessed for the period 2004 to 2009. However, in view of  

the ACRs ‘not available’ for the period 2004 to 2006 and for  

the  year  2008-2009,  the  Committee  considered  the  ACRs  of  

preceding years 1999 to 2002. In this regard the UPSC has  

also referred to the Government’s guidelines issued from time  

to time.

17. It was  further  submitted on  behalf  of  the  UPSC  that  

since the rule of the State Government regarding the period  

of writing of ACRs remained the same to the Select Lists of  

2009 and 2009A, the Selection Committee as per the internal  

guidelines  adopted  the  assessment  of  previous  Selection  

Committee. Therefore, assessment of ACR of 1st respondent for  

the period from 26th May, 2006 to 6th March, 2007 certified as  

valid by the State Government for select list of 2009 was  

adopted  by  Selection  Committee  which  met  to  prepare  the  

select list of 2009A. It was also submitted that the State  

Government  is  required  to  place  only  valid  ACRs  in  the  

Dossier of officers under the zone of consideration for a  

particular Select List, as was done in this case.  

18. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf  

of the parties. After giving our careful consideration to the  

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that  

the High Court was not justified in interfering with the well  

reasoned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Page 9

9

19. Promotion  and  appointment  of  officers  of  State  Civil  

Service  to  Indian  Administrative  Service  are  governed  by  

Indian  Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  

Regulations,  1955.  As  per  Regulation  5(4)  of  the  Indian  

Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  

Regulations, 1955 it is mandatory for the Selection Committee  

to make an overall relative assessment of ‘service records’  

of  the  eligible  candidates.  The  said  Regulation  reads  as  

follows:   

“Regulation 5(4) - The Selection Committee shall 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.”

20.  Under Regulation 5(5), the list shall be prepared first  

from amongst the officers finally classified as ‘Outstanding’  

and then from amongst those similarly classified as ‘Very  

Good’ and so on. The said regulation reads as follows:

“Regulation 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.

Provided that the name of any 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.

Page 10

10

  Provided  further  that  while  preparing  year-wise  select   lists  for  more  than  one  year  pursuant  to  the  second   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.”       

As per first proviso to Regulation 5(5) the name of such  

officer  so  included  in  the  Select  List  against  whom  

departmental proceedings are pending or anything adverse as  

has come to the notice of the State Government which renders  

him unsuitable for appointment to the service is provisional.

21. Regulation 6 relates to consultation with UPSC. As per  

the  said  Regulation  the  list  prepared  in  accordance  with  

Regulation 5 is required to be forwarded to the UPSC by the  

State Government along with records of all members of the  

State Civil Service included in the list.

22. From the stand taken by the respondents, it is clear  

that  the  State  Government  did  not  send  all  the  service  

records  of  eligible  candidates  to UPSC  for consideration.  

Particularly, the relevant service records of 1st respondent,  

for the  preceding  five  years  prior  to selection  were  not  

forwarded on the ground that they are not valid.

23. The minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee  

dated 27th December, 2011 as recorded at paragraph 5.3 and 5.4  

of the proceedings suggests that the service records of all

Page 11

11

the officers upto the year 2008-2009 were considered and on  

that basis the 1st respondent was recommended for promotion.  

But this is far from truth as apparent from paragraph 5.3,  

5.4 and 5.5 of the proceedings as quoted hereunder:

“5.3. The  Committee  examined  the  service  records  of   the officers whose names are included in the Annexure   and  who  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  eligibility  for   promotion  to  the  IAS.  The  Committee  took  into   consideration the ACRs of the officers (certified as valid   by the State Government vide letter dated 07.12.2011)   upto  the  year  2008-09.  On  an  overall  relative   assessment  of  their  service  records,  the  Committee   assessed them as indicated against their names in the   Annexure.  While  assessing  their  suitability,  the   Committee did not take into consideration any adverse  remarks  in  the  ACRs  of  the  officers  which  were  not   communicated to them.  

5.4 The  Committee  examined  the  records  of  the   officers  whose  names  are  included  in  Annexure-I  and   who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility, up to the year   2008-09.  On  an  overall  relative  assessment  of  their   service  records,  the  Committee  assessed  them  as  indicated  against  their  names  in  Annexure-I.  while   assessing their  suitability,  the Committee did  not  take   into consideration any adverse remarks in the ACRs of   the officers which were not communicated to them.

5.5 On  the  basis  of  the  above  assessment,  the   Committee  selected  the  officers  whose  names  are  mentioned below as suitable for promotion to the Indian   Administrative Service and placed them in the following  order:-

Sl.  No.

Name of the Officer  (Smt./Shri)

Date of  Birth

1. P. Senthilkumar (SC) 18.12.1957 2. V. Kalaiarasi 29.03.1969 3. G. Govindaraj (SC) 26.04.1960 4. V. Mohanraj (SC) 22.01.1957 5.* R. Nanthagopal 23.05.1964 6. N. Vankatachalam 29.04.1965 7. C. Manoharan (SC) 15.12.1955

*The names at S.No.5 has been included in the list provisionally   subject  to  clearance  in  the  disciplinary  proceedings  pending   against  him  and  grant  of  integrity  certificate  by  the  State   Government.”

Page 12

12

The name of the 1st respondent was included provisionally  

subject to clearance in the disciplinary proceedings pending  

against him and grant of integrity certificate by the State  

Government.  

24. The  appellant  had  challenged  the  action  of  State  

Government declaring an ACR invalid in absence of any valid  

reason. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,  

merely because an ACR has been written beyond the period of 9  

months,  it  cannot  be  held  to  be  invalid  in  absence  of  

limitation prescribed under any rule or guideline.

25. On  behalf  of  the  State  Government  reliance  has  been  

placed on Government Order dated 4th April, 2007 issued by  

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department of State  

of Tamil Nadu. The Government issued guidelines with respect  

to writing of  the  Annual Confidential Report  by the  said  

Government  Order.  The  relevant  portion  of  the  said  order  

reads as follows:

“6.The Government have examined the above issue afresh   and  in  supersession  of  all  the  existing  instructions  the   following fresh instructions are issued in respect of writing   of confidential reports by the Reporting Officers whenever   they are  demitting office  either  on transfer  or  for  other   reasons  in  the  middle  of  the  year.  The  following   instructions are to be followed scrupulously.  

“Whenever the Reporting Officers are to relinquish  charge on transfer or for other reasons, they should write   the confidential reports in respect of all his subordinate   officers  and  the  handling  over  charge  report  should   accompany a certificate to his higher officer that he had   completely  written  the  confidential  reports  on  all  his   subordinate  officers.  However,  it  it  is  not  possible  to   adhere  to  the  above  procedure,  due  to  administrative   reasons,  he  may  take  a  reasonable  time  to  write  

Page 13

13

confidential  reports  but  this  time  limit  should  not   ordinarily exceed 90 days from the date of his demitting   office.”

26. In the guidelines issued by the State Government, there  

is nothing to declare any Annual Confidential Report invalid.  

The period of 90 days prescribed therein is not mandatory but  

directory. The 90 days period is also to be counted from the  

date of demitting office by the officer who writes the A.C.R.  

27. In view of the discussion above, we hold that in terms  

of  Regulation  5(4)  of  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  

(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 it was incumbent  

upon State Government to forward complete service records of  

all the eligible candidates including the 1st respondent to  

the UPSC for considering them for promotion to IAS cadre.  

Withholding  of  ACRs  of  the  year  2003-2009  of  the  1st  

respondent on a wrong presumption that they were invalid, is  

illegal and fatal in the case of 1st respondent towards his  

appointment to the post of Indian Administrative Service. The  

aforesaid fact though came to the notice of the UPSC which  

sought clarification from the Government of Tamil Nadu, the  

State  Government  misled  the  UPSC  which  resulted  in  wrong  

assessment of service records of 1st respondent in violation  

of  Regulation  5(4)  read  with  Regulation  6  of  the  Indian  

Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  

Regulations, 1955.

Page 14

14

28. The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  by  its  judgment  

dated  18th February,  2013  rightly  held  that  the  Selection  

Committee has not taken into account all relevant facts and  

records to come to a conclusion that the 1st respondent is  

superior to appellant.

29. The Central Administrative Tribunal also considered the  

issue  of  departmental  proceedings  pending  against  the  1st  

respondent  under  Rule  17(b)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Service  

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was noticed by the Selection  

Committee as apparent from recommendation of the name of 1st  

respondent with a star mark shown against the same with a  

note  that  in  view  of  the  pendency  of  the  departmental  

proceedings  inclusion  of  the  name  of  1st respondent  was  

provisional.  In  the  said  departmental  proceedings  Enquiry  

Officer after going through the evidence and reply submitted  

by the 1st respondent held that the charge No.2 is proved  

against the 1st respondent. In spite of the same, the State  

Government dropped the charges.  

30. The Tribunal noticed that the State Government dropped  

the charges against the 1st respondent without giving detailed  

reasons for such action. Considering the same the Tribunal  

held that the State Government failed to furnish the valid  

reasons for dropping charges and for subsequent issuance of  

integrity  certificate  to  the  1st respondent.  For  the  said  

reason the Tribunal held that the action on the part of the  

State is a case of hasty decision.

Page 15

15

31. The High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines dated  

4th April, 2007  issued by the State Government with regard to  

the ACR and wrongly accepted the stand of the respondents  

that invalid ACRs were not to be considered. The High Court  

also  exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in  discussing  the  charges  

framed  against  the  1st respondent  and  in  justifying  the  

grounds for dropping the charges, though it was not disclosed  

by the State Government.

32. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned  

judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the High  

Court  in  Writ  Petition  No.5508  of  2013, upheld  the  order  

passed  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  dated  18th  

February,  2013  with  direction  to  the  respondent(s)  to  

reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent  

for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service  

against the vacancies for the year 2009A. If necessary, a  

fresh  Selection  Committee  or  a  Review  Committee  shall  be  

constituted  and  reconvened.  The  process  of  selection  be  

completed  within  three  months.  The  order  passed  by  the  

Tribunal stands modified to the extent above.  

33. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations  

and directions. No costs.

………………………………………………………………………J.                       (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

Page 16

16

……………………………………………………………………J.                  (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 21, 2014.