Back
1975 Supreme(P&H) 137
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and M.R.Sharma JJ.
M L Trighatia
Versus
State Of Haryana
Decided On : OCTOBER 27, 1975
The Selection Committee's decision to drop the petitioner's name from the select list was in violation of Regulation 5(7) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, as the reasons recorded by the Selection Committee were cryptic and did not reveal any rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
Headnote:
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATION, 1955 - REGULATION 5(3), 5(7) - SELECTION COMMITTEE - SUPERSESSION OF PETITIONER - REASONS - PRIVILEGE - PUBLIC INTEREST - ARTICLE 14, 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the Punjab Civil Service, was allocated to the State of Haryana in 1971. He was considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and his name was included in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee in 1971 and 1972. However, he was not appointed to the IAS during this period. In 1973, the Selection Committee dropped his name from the select list, citing his age as the reason. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the consideration of age was irrelevant as he was already on the select list and that the reasons recorded by the Selection Committee were inadequate and did not comply with Regulation 5(7) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Selection Committee's decision to drop the petitioner's name from the select list was in violation of Regulation 5(7) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. The Court found that the reasons recorded by the Selection Committee were cryptic and did not reveal any rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. The Court also held that the claim of privilege made by the Union Public Service Commission to protect the proceedings of the Selection Committee was not valid, as the disclosure of the reasons for the petitioner's supersession would not cause injury to public interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the Selection Committee's decision to drop the petitioner's name from the select list was in violation of Regulation 5(7) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955? 2. Whether the claim of privilege made by the Union Public Service Commission to protect the proceedings of the Selection Committee was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Regulation 5(7) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, which requires the Selection Committee to record its reasons for the supersession of a member of the State Civil Service, is mandatory and intended to be the only statutory safeguard against arbitrary and adverse action against members of the State Civil Service in matters of promotion to the IAS. 2. The Court held that the reasons recorded by the Selection Committee for the supersession of the petitioner were cryptic and did not reveal any rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. The Court found that the reasons were inadequate and did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(7). 3. The Court held that the claim of privilege made by the Union Public Service Commission to protect the proceedings of the Selection Committee was not valid, as the disclosure of the reasons for the petitioner's supersession would not cause injury to public interest.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the Selection Committee to drop the petitioner's name from the select list. The Court directed the Selection Committee to reconsider the petitioner's case within three months for the purpose of his inclusion in the select list in accordance with law.
1. In this rather voluminous writ petition, ultimate analysis reveals that at least one issue is concluded in favour of the petitioner by the recent enunciation of the law in Union of India V/s. M. L. Capoor. As this writ petition must succeed on that narrow issue, we deem it wasteful to adjudicate upon a variety of points diffusely raised by the petitioner, in person, before us, in a rather longwinded argument. It suffices, therefore, to advert only to those facts which are directly relevant to what is now the primary question.
2. Mr. Muni Lal Trighatia, petitioner, had served a tenure of nearly two decades in the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch) when by way of a mutual exchange of service (duly approved by the Central Government) with another officer Shri B. S. Malik, he was allocated to the State of Haryana in May, 1971. The petitioner at the material time was a permanent selection grade officer in the Punjab Civil Service. It is the common case that for the purpose of promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, the petitioner is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (hereinafter called the Regulation ).
3. By virtue of Regulation 3, a Selection Committee is constituted to frame a select list from amongst the members of the State Civil Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. This Committee consists of six senior Central and State civil servants. On 2nd December, 1971, a meeting of the above-said Selection Committee was held at Chandigarh and the petitioners name along with others was brought on the select list prepared under Regulation 7 for the purpose of subsequent appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. His name figured at serial No.6 but during the whole of the year 1972, the petitioners name was not recommended for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as the service) though the five persons above him in the list were duly promoted to the said service. It is the petitioners grievance that a number of vacancies arose during this period and even though some of them remained unfilled, he was not recommended to be appointed against such posts.
4. The next meeting of the Selection Committee was then held on 25th December, 1972, and the petitioners name was again retained on the select list. This time he figured at serial No.2 of the list and one Shri Sukhdev Parshad was the only person above him. In the year 1973 also the petitioners turn for promotion to the service again did not come and his name was not recommended under Regulation 9 though Shri Sukhdev Parshad was duly appointed and there remained unfilled vacancies in the service. During this period also the grouse of the petitioner appears to be identical with that in the preceding year.
5. Another meeting of the Selection Committee was then held in December, 1973. Though the petitioners name stood at the top of the preceding years list, this time the Selection Committee dropped his name altogether from the select list whilst bringing thereon a number of persons who were considerably junior in service to him. The Committee recorded the following cryptic reasons apparently under Regulation 5 (7) for the supersession of the petitioner: Sarvshri Muni Lal Trighatia, Ram Narain Singh, Girdhari Lal Nagpal, Bharat Ratan Nagpal, Shanti Lal Malhotra, V. K. Chib and Ram Parkash had attained the age of 52 years on 1-11973 Shri Muni Lal Trighatia, whose name also appears in the select list in force, was considered by the Committee as not fit for further continuance in the list.
6. It is the petitioners allegation that so far as he was concerned, the consideration of age was totally extraneous and irrelevant to the issue of his selection because the proviso to Sub-clause (3) of Regulation 5 clearly lays down that a person whose name appeared on the select list already in force shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list even if he has atta
