TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing body. He claimed to possess superior merit over the three respondents who were senior to him and who were selected and appointed by the Government. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the respondent. It dismissed the application while observing thus: On careful scrutiny of the ACRs of the applicant and other eligible candidates in the list, we are satisfied that the official respondents have considered the merits and demerits of each and every candidate while notional benefits keeping open the said two posts for consideration for Selection from others in the eligibility list. Though it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been recommended President's Police Medal for distinguished service rendered by him and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the said Committee, it is found that the said Police Medal has been awarded to the applicant on the Republic Day of 2001 i.e, nearly after one year from the date on which the Selection Committee met i.e, 22.12.1999 for preparation of the select lists for the years 1996-1997, 1998 and 1999. As already pointed out by us, whatever awards given to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Regulation 5. The learned tribunal failed to analyse and examine this issue and thereby committed an error apparent on the face of the record The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the official respondents to constitute a fresh Selection Committee and to prepare the panel of officers to be promoted to IPS for the year 1999 by assessing overall relative assessment by considering the relevant ACRs and Service Records as directed supra . Assailing this judgment of the High Court, the SLPs were preferred by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Union of India. Before proceeding further, we may note the relevant provisions contained in Regulation 5(4) 5(5) of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 in regard to preparation of select list. 5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' or 'unfit' as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names, first from among the officers finally classified as 'outst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to those aspects. Pursuant to this Order, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of UPSC and reply thereto was filed by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the matter has been listed for further hearing. In regard to the service records and ACRs, we reiterate the prima facie view expressed by us in our Order dated 18.1.2005. The assumption underlying the Writ petitioner's contention that the ACRs do not reflect the details of awards and commendations and the penalties is not correct. Therefore, the substratum of the reasoning of the High Court that relevant material in the form of service registers were not made available to the Selection Committee for scrutiny collapses. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 1806]. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, it would be desirable to record reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision. What remains is whether the case of the 1st respondent was duly considered vis-a-vis the other eligible officers including Respondents 5 to 7. The question is whether the non-selection of the 1st respondent to IPS against the vacancies pertaining to A.P. State for the year 1999 is on account of non-adherence to relevant rules or arbitrariness in the process of selection. The actual procedure adopted and the factors taken into account by the UPSC / Selection Committee has been narrated in the additional affidavit dated 15.2.2005 filed on behalf of UPSC sworn to by the Deputy Director (AIS), UPSC. The relevant extracts are given hereunder: It is also submitted that the Regulations do not provide for the detailed method to be followed in the matter of assessment of officers. The Commission has, therefore, evolved certain guidelines to be followed by the Selectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Select List of 1999 due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. That, sufficient number of officers senior to the respondent No.1 with overall grading as 'Very Good' were available and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, their names were included in the Select List of 1999. Two officers senior to the Respondent No.1 who were graded as 'Very Good' also could not find a place in the Select List of 1999 due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. We have also gone through the records of assessment placed before us by the learned counsel for the UPSC. The arguments in the additional affidavit coupled with the contents of the record make it clear that the 1st respondent could not be selected for the reason that he did not get the gradation of 'outstanding' for four years in a block of five years that was taken into account for the purpose of evaluating the merits of the candidates. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent points out that for the year 1993-94 which falls within the five year range, the first respondent ought to have been graded as 'outstanding' in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
