9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 1. 2. Brief facts necessary for appreciating the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties are that a meeting of the Selection Committee for preparing a select list for promotion to the joint IPS Cadre of Assam, Meghalaya as contemplated by the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion Regulations 1955 was held on 27th December, 1983). Even though two officers junior to Respondent No. 1 were selected and included in the select list, the name of Respondent No. 1 was not included in the said list. Aggrieved Respondent No. 1 filed a civil Rule in the Guwahati High Court which stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1986. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that certain adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Rolls (C.C. Rolls) of Respondent No. 1 had not been communicated to him till the date of meeting and on their being communicated the Respondent No. 1 made a representation to the State Government which was allowed, with the result that even the adverse remarks subsequently expunged were taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the functions of the Selection Committee. The Tribunal could not make a conjecture as to what the Selection Committee would have done or to resort to conjecture as to the norms to be applied for this purpose. The proper order for the Tribunal to pass under the circumstances was to direct the Selection Committee to reconsider the merits of Respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis the official who was junior to him and whose name was Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar. Instead of doing so, the Tribunal has held that Respondent No. 1 should be deemed to have been included in the impugned select list prepared in 1983, at least in the place in the order of his seniority on the basis of the assessment of his C.C. Rolls, and has issued a direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 with effect from the date on which Shri Kar was appointed. The jurisdiction to make the selection vested in the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee had to make the selection by applying the same yardstick and norm as regards the rating to be given to the officials, who were in the field of choice by categorizing the concerned officials as outstanding , very good good etc. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em were promoted. Instead of issuing such a writ, the High Court wrongly issued writs directing the State Government to promote them with retrospective effect. The High Court ought not to have issued such writs without giving the State Government an opportunity in the first instance to consider their fitness for promotion in 1959. 6. learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in this connection, however, placed reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. S. Tripathy and Ors. [1986] 2 SCC 1973 and pointed out that in that case even this Court instead of directing the Government of Gujarat to consider afresh the claim of Shri Tripathy, the respondent in that case, for promotion to the selection grade and the super-time scale declared that Shri Tripathy should have been given selection grade and super-time scale with effect from the dates mentioned therein and directed the Government of Gujarat to give the consequential monetary benefits. So far as this submission is concerned, it may, at the first instance, be pointed out that extend of jurisdiction exercised by this Court cannot be equated with the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Secondly, as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o October, 1979 he was on each occasion graded above average which is equivalent to very good . The general description of his performance during these years also confirm that he was held to be very good. In the report for the period 17.10.79 to 31.3.80 he has been graded average but after the expunction of the adverse remarks, therefore, the performance as depicted in the report for the period is to be graded as very good . Same is the case with the two other reports containing the adverse remarks.... This the Tribunal should not have done. 7. Turning now to the next point, while the Tribunal has not rested its decision on the ground that the Selection Committee had not given reasons for not selecting the Respondent No. 1 the Tribunal has made a declaration of law to this effect that it was obligatory on the part of the Selection Committee to have recorded the reasons for superseding those who were senior. In the first place, the Tribunal was in error in taking the view that it constituted supersession. The Selection Committee was making a selection and when some one was selected in preference to the other, it could not be said that it amounted to supersession of a jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
