1988 (3) TMI 466 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal could lawfully pass the operative order regarding the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 in the select list.
2. Whether the Selection Committee erred in considering adverse remarks against Respondent No. 1.
3. Whether the Tribunal could assume the role of the Selection Committee.
4. Whether the Selection Committee was required to record reasons for not selecting Respondent No. 1.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Tribunal could lawfully pass the operative order regarding the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 in the select list:
The Tribunal concluded that adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Rolls (C.C. Rolls) of Respondent No. 1 were not communicated to him until the date of the Selection Committee meeting. These remarks were subsequently expunged by the State Government. The Tribunal held that the non-selection of Respondent No. 1 was bad in law and directed that he should be deemed included in the select list and appointed to the Indian Police Service from the date his immediate junior, Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar, was appointed. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by making such an order. The proper course was to direct the Selection Committee to reconsider the merits of Respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis his junior, without the adverse remarks.

2. Whether the Selection Committee erred in considering adverse remarks against Respondent No. 1:
The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee erred by considering adverse remarks that were not communicated to Respondent No. 1 and were subsequently expunged. The legal effect of setting aside the adverse remarks was that they must be treated as non-existent in the eye of law. Therefore, the Selection Committee should not have taken these remarks into account.

3. Whether the Tribunal could assume the role of the Selection Committee:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to make selections vested in the Selection Committee. The Tribunal could not substitute itself for the Selection Committee and make the selection as if it were exercising the Selection Committee's powers. The Tribunal's role was to ensure that the Selection Committee reconsidered the matter without the adverse remarks, not to make the selection itself.

4. Whether the Selection Committee was required to record reasons for not selecting Respondent No. 1:
The Tribunal declared that it was obligatory for the Selection Committee to record reasons for superseding senior officers. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the concept of supersession is relevant to promotions, not selections. The Selection Committee was making a selection, not a promotion, and therefore, it was not required to record reasons for not selecting a senior officer. This view was supported by the precedent set in Ram Das v. Union of India, where it was held that reasons need not be recorded for not selecting a person in the arena.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Tribunal's order to the extent that it directed the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 in the select list and his appointment from the date his junior was appointed. Instead, the Supreme Court directed the Selection Committee to reconsider the select list as if the adverse remarks did not exist and to decide whether Respondent No. 1 would have been selected based on the proper categorization of his C.C. Rolls. If upon reconsideration, Respondent No. 1's claim is accepted, he should be appointed with effect from the date he would have been selected in 1983, with all consequential benefits. The Selection Committee was directed to complete this exercise within two months. There was no order regarding costs.