1. Appointment to Indian Administrative Service by selection — Non-State Civil Service Officers — Selection based on merit and ability under relevant Regulations. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 191
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. KANIA, C.J.I., R.M. SAHAI AND G.N. RAY, JJ.
R. Tamilmani, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3145 of 1991, D/- 26-2-1992.
A selection committee's rating of a candidate as "outstanding" by some members and "very good" by others constitutes a consensus that the candidate is at least "very good," and cannot be used as a ground to decline recommendation based on a lack of consensus.
Headnote:(A) Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 and Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Appointment to service - Selection process - Rating by Selection Committee - Consensus on ability - Where three members of a five-member committee rated a candidate as "outstanding" and two as "very good", it constitutes a consensus that the candidate is at least "very good" - Selection Committee cannot decline recommendation on the ground of lack of consensus in such a scenario. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A candidate was among five called for interview for selection to a civil service from among non-state civil service officers. In the rating process, three members of the selection committee rated the candidate as "outstanding" and two as "very good". The selection committee declined to recommend the candidate's name for consideration on the ground that there was no consensus regarding his ability. The administrative tribunal dismissed the application filed by the candidate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that if three members ranked the candidate as outstanding and two as very good, there was definitely a consensus that the candidate was at least "very good". There was no reason why the case should not have been put up for consideration by the commission for appointment.
Issues: Whether a rating of "outstanding" by some members and "very good" by others of a selection committee amounts to a lack of consensus regarding the candidate's ability.
Ratio Decidendi: A consensus is established when all members of a selection committee rate a candidate at or above a certain positive threshold; a split between "outstanding" and "very good" ratings confirms a minimum consensus of "very good" ability.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a lack of unanimous rating among Selection Committee members constitutes a lack of consensus regarding a candidate's ability for appointment. (Para 1 )
3. Ratings of outstanding and very good collectively establish a consensus that the candidate possesses at least a very good level of ability. (Para 2 )
4. Consensus on a candidate's ability is established if all committee members rate the candidate at or above a minimum acceptable standard. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — Direction to submit the candidate's case to the Union Public Service Commission for consideration for appointment. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. How is consensus regarding a candidate's ability determined when Selection Committee members provide different positive ratings?
Consensus is established if the ratings collectively indicate that the candidate meets a minimum required standard; for instance, a mix of outstanding and very good ratings confirms the candidate is at least very good. (Para 2 )
Judgment
KANIA, C.J.I.:- This appeal arises out of an order of a Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein. The prayer in the application was to consider and appoint the appellant to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as IAS) for the year 1990. It appears that for the year 1990 the appellant was one of the five candidates called for interview for selection to the I.A.S. from among the Non-State Civil Service Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu. It seems to be common ground that under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956, read with similar Regulations, namely, Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 persons not belonging to the State Civil Service, who are of outstanding merit and ability and who have completed not less than eight years of service, can be considered for appointment to the I.A.S. by selection. In the case of the appellant the Selection Committee interviewed the appellant along with four other candidates recommending their names to the Union Public Service Commission for approval. In this rating process three of the members of the Select committee rated the appellant as "outstanding" whereas the other two members rated him as "very good". By curious process of logic, which we find a little difficult to understand, the Selection Committee declined to recommend his name for consideration on the ground that there was no consensus regarding his ability.
2. In our view it is clear that if out of five committee members three ranked the appellant as outstanding and two as very good, the result would be that there was definitely consensus that he was at least "very good" and in fact a little better. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no reason why his case could not have been put up for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission. The Central Administrative Tribunal, with respect, was in error in dismissing the application of the appellant as it did. We direct the case of the appellant to be put up for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in the vacancy of 1990 on the footing of the consensus as we have set out earlier.
3. The appeal is allowed as aforestated. There will ,however, be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1992 SC 1120
