TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Seniority not sole factor for select list; State Govt power to terminate appointments under Rule 9(2).</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA Versus. MOHAN LAL CAPOOR & OTHERS</h3> The High Court's interpretation that seniority is the dominant factor for inclusion in the select list was deemed incorrect. The State Government retains ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Regulation 5(2) regarding seniority, merit, and suitability for inclusion in the select list.2. Authority of the State Government to terminate appointments under Rule 9(2) of the Cadre Rules.3. Requirement of notice and the application of natural justice principles when superseding senior officers.4. Nature of the function of the Selection Committee and whether it is administrative or quasi-judicial.5. Compliance with the mandatory provision of recording reasons for supersession under Regulation 5(5).6. Validity of the reversion orders issued by the State Government based on the select list of 1968.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Regulation 5(2):The High Court's interpretation that seniority is the dominant factor for inclusion in the select list was incorrect. Regulation 5(2) indicates that merit and suitability should be the primary considerations, with seniority playing a secondary role. Seniority becomes relevant only when merit and suitability are roughly equal or when it is not possible to make a firm assessment of two eligible candidates. The purpose of the annual review is to assess the merit and suitability of all eligible candidates afresh. The field of selection must include all eligible members of the service to ensure that the selection is based on merit and suitability.2. Authority of the State Government to Terminate Appointments:The State Government retains the power to terminate appointments made under Rule 9(2) of the Cadre Rules. The power to appoint inherently includes the power to terminate unless expressly stated otherwise. Rule 9(3) allows the Central Government to direct the State Government to terminate an appointment, but this does not strip the State Government of its authority to terminate appointments independently.3. Requirement of Notice and Natural Justice:The inclusion of a name in the select list provides only an inchoate right for appointment during the year the list is current. There is no vested right to be included in the select list for the following year. The principle of natural justice does not require notice to a senior officer when he is proposed to be superseded by a junior officer based on merit and suitability. Extending the audi alteram partem rule to mere expectations is not expedient.4. Nature of the Function of the Selection Committee:The function of the Selection Committee in preparing the select list is administrative, not quasi-judicial. The process involves assessing the service records of all eligible candidates, which is more akin to an examination than a judicial proceeding. There is no lis or dispute between candidates, and the process does not require a public hearing or adherence to rules of evidence.5. Compliance with Regulation 5(5):The Selection Committee failed to comply with the mandatory provision of recording reasons for supersession under Regulation 5(5). The stock reason provided ('on an overall assessment, the records of these officers are not such as to justify their appointment to the service at this stage in preference to those selected') was insufficient. Reasons must disclose a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached, ensuring transparency and fairness.6. Validity of Reversion Orders:The reversion orders issued by the State Government based on the 1968 select list were invalid. The State Government acted on the incorrect assumption that it was bound to revert officers simply because their names were not included in the new select list. The Division Bench correctly quashed the select lists of 1968 and the reversion orders, as the Selection Committee did not properly apply the relevant regulations, particularly regarding the recording of reasons for supersession.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of merit and suitability in the selection process, the authority of the State Government to terminate appointments, and the necessity of recording adequate reasons for supersession to ensure fairness and compliance with the regulations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
