Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Union Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
M. Sathiya Priya and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10854 OF 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2018
1986 (Supp) SCC 617 – Relied upon
(b) IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Regulation 5 r/w guidelines – Service records of previous five years need to be considered – For selection in 2008, records of 2002-2007 were correctly taken into account – CAT and high Court erred in holding that records of 2003-2008 ought to be taken into consideration. (Para 12)
(c) IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Regulation 5 r/w guidelines – Selection committee also reviews and determines overall grading recorded in ACR – It has to consider overall relative assessment of the service records of each of the eligible officers. (Para 13, 14)
IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Regulation 5 r/w guidelines – Expert body like selection committee considering and assessing merit of candidates – Not open to CAT and High Court to sit over the assessment as an appellate authority – Not open for Courts generally to interfere except where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. (Para 15)
(d) Service law – Selection – Selection committee not bound by classification given by State authorities in ACR. (Para 16)
(2005) 10 SCC 15; (2007) 11 SCC 10; (2008) 2 SCC 119 – Relied upon
(e) Administration of justice – Court cannot make out a new case. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent (contesting respondent) was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu; she was promoted as Superintendent of Police.
The name of the first respondent was considered at serial No. 9 in the zone of consideration for promotion to IPS. On an oral assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee graded the first respondent as “Good”. On the basis of this grading, she could not be included in the select list of 2008 due to the statutory limit of its size and the availability of officers with higher grading for inclusion in the select list.
Aggrieved by the noninclusion of her name in the select list of 2008, the first respondent filed Original Application before the CAT contending that on valid assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee ought to have graded her as “Outstanding” or at least “Very Good”, and in that event she would have been selected for appointment to the IPS.
The CAT allowed the Original Application filed by the first respondent herein. The judgment of the CAT is confirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed by the Union Public Service Commission (for short, ‘UPSC’) against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the UPSC and confirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (for short, ‘CAT’), dated 07.04.2010 directing the official respondents to consider the name of the first respondent herein for appointment to the IPS by taking into account the service records for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2008, and appoint her to the IPS by notionally treating such appointment with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 5.5.2009, and also by giving appropriate place of seniority to the first respondent amongst the private respondents.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The first respondent (contesting respondent) was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu; she joined for duties on 26.05.1997; she was promoted as Superintendent of Police on 10.06.2006 and has worked at different places on the said post. In the seniority list of State Police Service (for short ‘SPS’) Officers, the first respondent, at the given point of time, stood at serial No.11. Since the fourth person in the seniority list was overaged, the first respondent was effectively considered at serial No.10 in the seniority list for the purpose of this case. For the year 2008, there were ten vacancies for SPS to the Indian Police Service (for short, ‘IPS’), which is an All India Service. The appointment by promotion to the IPS is governed by the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). The zone of consideration is three times the number of vacancies and, therefore, at least thirty names ought to be considered for appointment to the IPS. The names of the first thirty officers in the SPS including the name of the first respondent, were placed before the Selection Committee for consideration for appointment to the IPS for the year 2008. The name of the first respondent was considered at serial No. 9 in the zone of consideration. On an oral assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee graded the first respondent as “Good”. On the basis of this grading, she could not be included in the select list of 2008 due to the statutory limit of its size and the availability of officers with higher grading for inclusion in the select list. Though, at an earlier point of time, it was found that disciplinary proceedings were pending against Srimati V. Jayashree (respondent no.6 herein), subsequently on being cleared by the disciplinary authority, the Government of India issued a notification appointing Srimati V. Jayashree also to the IPS.
Thus, all the ten vacancies were filled by the Government of India including that of respondent no.6 herein.
3. Aggrieved by the noninclusion of her name in the select list of 2008, the first respondent filed Original Application No. 441 of 2009 before the CAT, inter alia contending that on valid assessment of her service records, the Selection Committee ought to have graded her as “Outstanding” or at least “Very Good”, and in that event she would have been selected for appointment to the IPS. She also contended that her service records are better than those of almost all the private respondents and that the Selection Committee had acted in an arbitrary manner in making the selection by superseding her for appointment to the IPS.
4. The CAT allowed the Original Application No. 441 of 2009 filed by the first respondent herein by its judgment dated 07.04.2010. The judgment of the CAT is confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2010, vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2013. The judgments of the CAT and the High Court are called in question in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
