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>Supreme Court Upholds Administrative Selection Process, Emphasizes Limited Judicial Review</h1> <h3>M.V. Thimmaiah & Ors Versus Union Public Service Commission & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision and emphasizing limited judicial review in administrative selection ... Whether the recommendations of the Selection Committee to fill up 8 vacancies belonging to the non-State Civil Service Officers of Government of Karnataka to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of Karnataka cadre are mala fides, arbitrary and also the Selection Committee without application of mind had awarded marks to the selected candidates in a discriminatory manner? Issues Involved:1. Allegation of mala fides against the Selection Committee members.2. Constitution of the Selection Committee.3. Arbitrariness in the selection process and awarding of marks.4. Validity of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) considered in the selection process.5. Judicial review of the Selection Committee's decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Mala Fides:The Tribunal had initially held that the selection process was tainted with mala fides, particularly against Shri Subir Dutta, Member of the Commission, and Shri B.S. Patil, Chief Secretary. However, the High Court found that the allegations of mala fide against Shri Subir Dutta were 'too far-fetched' and not substantiated. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the allotment of a residential site to Shri Subir Dutta was unrelated to the selection process, as the allotment occurred before he became a Member of the Commission. Similarly, allegations against Shri B.S. Patil were dismissed as he was not impleaded as a party, and the allegations lacked concrete evidence.2. Constitution of the Selection Committee:The Tribunal had declared the Selection Committee improperly constituted due to the absence of the Divisional Commissioner. However, the Supreme Court noted that the post of Divisional Commissioner was abolished by the State Government effective from 1.4.2003, and the absence did not invalidate the Selection Committee's proceedings. The Committee was found to be properly constituted as per Regulation 3(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which allows the proceedings to remain valid if more than half the members attend.3. Arbitrariness in the Selection Process:The Tribunal had found the selection process arbitrary, particularly in the awarding of marks. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the Selection Committee's discretion in awarding marks and making assessments should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or statutory violations. The Court highlighted that the Selection Committee's decisions are not subject to judicial review unless there is a proven arbitrary exercise of power.4. Validity of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs):The Tribunal had invalidated the selection of certain candidates based on the timing of their ACRs. The Supreme Court clarified that the retrospective amendment of the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994, and their subsequent repeal by the Rules of 2000, rendered the timing of the ACRs irrelevant. The Court held that the Selection Committee was justified in considering the ACRs, and the candidates should not be penalized for delays in the reporting process by their superiors.5. Judicial Review of the Selection Committee's Decisions:The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not act as appellate authorities over the decisions of Selection Committees. The Court cited several precedents affirming that the assessment of candidates by expert bodies like the Selection Committee should not be interfered with unless there is evidence of mala fides or statutory non-compliance. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the allegations of mala fides, improper constitution of the Selection Committee, or arbitrariness in the selection process. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in matters of administrative selection processes. The contempt petition was also dismissed in light of the judgment in the civil appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
