2018 (4) TMI 1973 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Selection Committee's discretionary power to classify IPS candidates independent of state government gradings

Union Public Service Commission Versus M. Sathiya Priya and Ors.

The SC set aside CAT and HC judgments regarding IPS appointment. The Court held that Selection Committees have discretionary power to classify candidates ... Direction to official Respondents to consider the name of the first Respondent herein for appointment to the IPS by taking into account the service records for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2008 - appointment to the IPS by notionally treating such appointment with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 5.5.2009, and also by giving appropriate place of seniority to the first Respondent amongst the private Respondents - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the Selection Committee may be guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee may evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports. As has been held by this Court in the case of UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Ors. [2005 (5) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT], the power to classify as 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Unfit' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State authorities in the Annual Confidential Reports is not binding on the Selection Committee. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of grading at variance with that of the State Government, reasons be recorded. This Court has repeatedly observed and concluded that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority or an umpire to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like a Court of Appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only, and the courts rarely sits as a Court of Appeal to examine the selection of a candidate; nor is it the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. Since the Selection Committee constituted by the UPSC is manned by experts in the field, their assessment have to be trusted, unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala fides or arbitrariness. The High Court was of the view that since the records submitted before the Selection Committee did not include the grading of the officers recorded by the State Government, the Selection Committee did not have an opportunity to take into account the grading recorded by the State Government while coming to its conclusion, the said observations cannot be agreed upon. The records pertaining to the grading of the officers recorded by the State Government could have been secured by the High Court from the State Government. Instead of securing records from the State Government, the High Court has strangely observed that such records were not available before the Selection Committee. It is but natural for the Selection Committee to send back the records to the State Government after the selection process is ended and appointments are made. The judgments of the CAT and the High Court of Judicature at Madras stand set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Non-inclusion of the first respondent's name in the IPS select list for 2008.2. Assessment of the first respondent's service records by the Selection Committee.3. Validity of the CAT and High Court's judgments directing the appointment of the first respondent to the IPS.4. Interpretation and application of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and the relevant guidelines.Detailed Analysis:1. Non-inclusion of the First Respondent's Name in the IPS Select List for 2008:The first respondent, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu, was considered for promotion to the IPS for the year 2008. Despite being within the zone of consideration, her name was not included in the select list due to her grading as 'Good' by the Selection Committee. The first respondent contended that she should have been graded as 'Outstanding' or at least 'Very Good,' and thus included in the select list.2. Assessment of the First Respondent's Service Records by the Selection Committee:The Selection Committee is guided by the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and relevant guidelines. The Committee considers the service records of eligible officers, including Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), for the last five years preceding the year for which the select list is prepared. The relevant period for the 2008 select list was from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007. The Committee's role includes an independent assessment of the service records, not merely relying on the gradings given in the ACRs by the State authorities.3. Validity of the CAT and High Court's Judgments Directing the Appointment of the First Respondent to the IPS:The CAT and the High Court directed the appointment of the first respondent to the IPS, considering her service records from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, as the relevant period was up to 31.03.2007. The CAT and the High Court were deemed to have erred by reassessing the first respondent's performance and not properly appreciating the scope of the Selection Committee's role.4. Interpretation and Application of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and the Relevant Guidelines:The Supreme Court emphasized that the Regulations and Guidelines form a complete code for the selection process. The Selection Committee's independent assessment, including the classification of officers as 'Outstanding,' 'Very Good,' 'Good,' or 'Unfit,' is crucial. The Committee is not bound by the State Government's gradings and must consider the overall relative assessment of the officers. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Selection Committee's decisions should not be interfered with by courts unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the CAT and the High Court, reinstating the Selection Committee's decision. The Court underscored the importance of the Committee's independent assessment and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The appeal by the UPSC was allowed, and no costs were imposed.