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.