2021 (3) TMI 1349 - SC - Indian Laws

Promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies for 2015 - reconvening a meeting of the Selection Committee and thereafter, to reconsider the first Respondent - whether the first Respondent was correctly denied selection to the IAS having regard to the fact that a disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him on 29 September 2011? - HELD THAT - The UPSC has submitted that the DOPT Guidelines apply to the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for the purpose of promotion, whereas, in matters relating to selection of officers from the state civil services to the IAS, the UPSC Guidelines which have been framed in exercise of powers Under Article 320 of the Constitution would have to be considered. It was necessary for the High Court to do so since it was seized of proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court having not carried out the exercise, the impugned judgment is set aside - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration of promotion
- Jurisdictional error by the Tribunal and High Court
- Application of DOPT Guidelines for promotion to IAS
- Lack of substantive reasoning in the High Court judgment

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Supreme Court stemmed from a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa's judgment, where the Appellant challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing reconsideration of the first Respondent's promotion to the IAS. The Tribunal had instructed the Appellant to reevaluate the first Respondent's case for promotion for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, with consequential benefits if found suitable.

2. The High Court, in its judgment, acknowledged the Tribunal's detailed discussion of the law and contentions presented by both parties. However, it concluded that the Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error, leading to no interference being warranted. The High Court's judgment was criticized for lacking independent application of mind to the controversy and relying excessively on cutting, copying, and pasting from the Tribunal's judgment.

3. The core issue in the case was whether the first Respondent was rightfully denied selection to the IAS due to a disciplinary penalty imposed in 2011. The Supreme Court highlighted the difference in guidelines applicable for Departmental Promotion Committees and selection of officers from state civil services to the IAS, emphasizing the need for the High Court to assess the merits of the rival submissions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the writ petition to the High Court for further consideration. Given the retirement of the first Respondent and the impact on pensionary benefits, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition within four months. The appeal was consequently disposed of, with any pending applications also being resolved. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of substantive reasoning in judicial decisions and the quality of justice for maintaining the legitimacy of the judiciary.