2005 (5) TMI 676 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of merit by the Selection Committee.
2. Consideration of service records versus ACRs.
3. Requirement of recording reasons for grading by the Selection Committee.
4. Adherence to relevant rules and arbitrariness in the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Merit by the Selection Committee:
The 1st respondent, a Superintendent of Police, challenged the selection and appointment of certain officers to the Indian Police Service (IPS) against the vacancies of 1998 and 1999. He argued that despite his outstanding service, he was not selected, while officers with inferior merit were chosen. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, stating that the Selection Committee had considered all relevant facts, including the awards and commendations noted in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

2. Consideration of Service Records versus ACRs:
The High Court found that the Selection Committee only considered ACRs and not the entire service records, which was against sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5. The High Court directed the constitution of a fresh Selection Committee to reassess the officers' merits by considering both ACRs and service records. However, the Supreme Court observed that ACRs are comprehensive enough to reflect awards, commendations, and penalties, and thus the High Court's reasoning collapses.

3. Requirement of Recording Reasons for Grading by the Selection Committee:
The High Court's view that the Selection Committee should have recorded reasons for giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent was not endorsed by the Supreme Court. It cited the decision in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors., which stated that an administrative authority or Selection Committee is not obligated to record reasons for its decisions unless there is a statutory requirement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Selection Committee's function is administrative and does not require recording reasons for classifications that differ from the State Government's gradings.

4. Adherence to Relevant Rules and Arbitrariness in the Selection Process:
The Supreme Court examined whether the non-selection of the 1st respondent was due to non-adherence to relevant rules or arbitrariness. The UPSC's additional affidavit clarified that the Selection Committee followed a uniform procedure, considering ACRs from the last five years preceding the selection year. The 1st respondent was graded 'Very Good' because he had 'Outstanding' gradings for only three out of the five years considered. The Supreme Court found no unfairness or arbitrariness in this grading. While expressing some doubts about the guidelines that might give undue primacy to seniority over merit, the Court did not nullify the UPSC's decision due to the absence of a specific challenge to the guidelines.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the Selection Committee's process was not arbitrary and adhered to relevant rules. The appeals were allowed, and the 1st respondent's application was rightly dismissed.