Selection committee must reassess on corrected service record; tribunal cannot deem selection or order retrospective appointment.

When non-communicated and later expunged adverse remarks are treated as non-existent, the competent Selection Committee must reassess the candidate on that corrected record. The Tribunal cannot itself compare merit, deem a candidate selected, or direct retrospective appointment by substituting its judgment for that of the selection body; the matter must be remitted for fresh consideration. In promotion selection under the applicable amended regulations, the Selection Committee was also not bound to record reasons for not selecting a candidate considered in the field of choice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after holding that non-communicated and subsequently expunged adverse remarks could not be considered, the Tribunal could itself deem the respondent selected and direct appointment with retrospective effect instead of remitting the matter to the Selection Committee. (ii) Whether the Selection Committee was bound to record reasons for not selecting a person in the field of choice.

Issue (i): Whether, after holding that non-communicated and subsequently expunged adverse remarks could not be considered, the Tribunal could itself deem the respondent selected and direct appointment with retrospective effect instead of remitting the matter to the Selection Committee.

Analysis: The adverse entries, having not been communicated and having later been set aside, were required to be treated as non-existent. But the assessment of comparative merit, the grading to be assigned on the relevant service record, and the choice between candidates in the field belonged exclusively to the Selection Committee. The Tribunal could not conjecture what categorization the Committee would have made, nor could it substitute itself for the Committee by deeming the respondent selected and ordering retrospective appointment. The proper course was reconsideration by the Selection Committee on the footing that the adverse remarks did not exist.

Conclusion: The Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in directing deemed selection and retrospective appointment; the matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration by the Selection Committee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Selection Committee was bound to record reasons for not selecting a person in the field of choice.

Analysis: The case concerned selection for promotion, not supersession in the strict sense. The amended promotion regulations governed the selection process, and under the applicable legal position the Selection Committee was not required to record reasons for not selecting a candidate who was considered but not chosen.

Conclusion: No obligation to record reasons for non-selection existed in the circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part by setting aside the Tribunal's directions of deemed selection and retrospective appointment, while preserving only a direction for reconsideration of the select list by the competent Selection Committee on the correct footing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legality of a selection is vitiated by exclusion of relevant material, the court may require reconsideration by the competent selecting authority, but it cannot itself undertake the comparative assessment or direct appointment by substituting its judgment for that of the statutory selection body; reasons for non-selection are not mandatory in such selection proceedings under the applicable amended regulations.

---