Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J . :- I have had the advantage of reading the judgment in draft to be delivered by my learned brother K. N. Singh, J. I agree with him that the appeals and the writ petitions herein should be dismissed without any order as to costs. I also respectfully agree with him on the conclusions he has reached on the different contentions urged before us in these cases. It is not necessary to refer to the facts and the issues which have been exhaustively discussed by my learned brother. There is, however, one aspect of the matter on which I have certain reservations and I would like to express my views on this aspect so that the Government and the authorities concerned may try to evolve a little more objective basis on that aspect.

2. As mentioned, the validity of the Select Lists of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was impugned in these matters on the ground that the Committee had not recorded any reasons for superseding the appellants and/or petitioners. The question of recording of reasons had been discussed in the decision of this Court where Select List was quashed on the ground that the Committee had failed to record reasons in superseding senior officers. In view of Regns. 5(l) to 5(5) as prevailing at the relevant time which came up for interpretation in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1974) 1 SCR 797 : (AIR 1974 SC 87), this Court quashed the Select List on the ground that the Committee had failed to record reasons in superseding senior officers. It was held that it was incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated reasons in view of the said Regulation in a manner which would disclose as to how the record of superseded officers was judged in relation to the record of those officers who were preferred for selection. This Court reiterated in the context of the said Regulation that there was a mandatory obligation to record reasons in superseding senior officers, and therefore in the absence of such reasons the Select List had been vitiated.

3. Regulation 5 was, however, as noted by my learned brother, amended by Notification dated 3rd January, 1977 and after the amendment, Regns. 5(4) and 5(5) were altered. It was provided that the Selection Committee should classify eligible officers as "Outstanding", "Very Good", "Good" or "Unfit" as the case might be on overall relative assessment of their service record. The committee was required to categorise officers in four categories on the basis of an overall relative assessment of service record of the officers. After categorisation the Committee was required to place the names of those officers first on the list who might be categorised as "Outstanding" and thereafter those officers as mentioned aforesaid. Under the amended Regulation if a senior officer is superseded, the amended Regn. 5(5) does not require the Committee to record reasons for such supersession. The new amended Regulation emphasised that the merit and suitability was the governing consideration and seniority played only a subsidiary role. It was only when merits were roughly equal, seniority was the relevant determining factor. Regulation 5(5) as it stood prior to Capoors case laid emphasis on the role of seniority. This has been done away with.

4. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that it was felt difficult to record reasons in the prescribed manner as laid down by this Court in the said decision and the question was considered by a Conference of Chief Secretaries in May, 1976 and was further considered. The Committee recommended that the system of categorisation of officers for promotion to the higher post should be followed in case of All India Service also and thereafter the categorisation as noted above was introduced in consultation with the State Governments. Indeed the amended provision Regn. 5 minimised the role of seniority in the process of selection and importance and primacy was given to merit. This indeed is a laud