The Selection Committee for promotion to IAS is not bound by the grading given by the State Government in ACRs; it can independently assess officers. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of the expert committee.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Promotion from State Civil Service to IAS - The Selection Committee is not bound by the grading given by the State Government in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs); it can make its own assessment. (Paras 12-13)

(B) Function of Selection Committee - The Selection Committee has the exclusive domain to assess officers under consideration for promotion; its decisions can only be challenged on limited grounds such as illegality, mala fides, or patent material irregularity. (Paras 13.1-13.7)

(C) Judicial Review - A court or tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over the assessment of a Selection Committee; the court should not substitute its own decision for that of the expert body. (Paras 13.3, 13.5, 13.6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Deputy Collector from the 1987 batch belonging to the State Civil Service of Maharashtra, sought promotion to the IAS for the select lists of 2010 and 2011. The original Selection Committee assessed him as 'Good', and he was not selected. Thereafter, the State Government upgraded certain ACRs to 'Outstanding' or 'Very Good'. Pursuant to a Tribunal order, a Review Selection Committee reconsidered his case but again assessed him overall as 'Good', denying him inclusion in the select lists. The applicant was later promoted to the IAS for the 2012 select list. He sought antedating of his promotion to the 2010 or 2011 panel year.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal examined the records and found that the Review Selection Committee had considered the upgraded ACRs. It held that the Committee was not obliged to adopt the State Government's grading and could independently assess the applicant. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that it could not interfere with the Committee's assessment. The DoPT OM dated 09.05.2014 on Departmental Promotion Committees was held inapplicable to UPSC’s Selection Committees.

Issues: Whether the Review Selection Committee erred by not giving weightage to the upgraded ACRs and by assessing the applicant as 'Good', and whether the Tribunal could interfere with that assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Selection Committee has the prerogative to make its own classification of an officer’s service record, and its decision is not open to challenge unless there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fides. The court cannot re-evaluate the comparative merit as an appellate authority.

Result: Original Application dismissed. Pending MAs closed. No costs. (Paras 14-15)

ORDER

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

1.The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and set aside the Notification dated 17.01.2013 as well as the decision of the Review Selection Committee dated qua 14.07.2014 the applicant with all consequential benefits and also seeking the direction to the respondents to promote the applicant into Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the select list for 2010 and, if required, in the select list for 2011 and grant him all consequential benefits w.e.f. 17.01.2013.

2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant are that he belongs to 1987 batch of Deputy Collector in the State of Maharashtra. On 09.07.2012, the meeting of Selection Committee was convened by the UPSC for considering the cases of members of State Civil Services of Maharashtra for promotion to the IAS against the vacancies of the years 2010 and 2011. The ACRs of the applicant for the years 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 were erroneously recorded as B+(Good). By considering the said ACRs, the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 09.07.2012 granted overall relative assessment to the applicant as ‘Good’ for the select list of 2010 and 2011. The respondent No.1 issued impugned Notification dated 17.01.2013 effecting promotions of 3 officers for the year 2011 into the IAS. All these officers were junior to the applicant.

2.1 The applicant filed OA No.401/2013 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was withdrawn by him with liberty to approach the Government of Maharashtra to review of his ACRs. On 15.03.2013, the Government of Maharashtra passed order upgrading the ACRs of the applicant for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.02.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 24.07.2005 to A+(Outstanding).

2.2 The applicant filed OA No.532/2014 before this Tribunal which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2014 directing the UPSC to take immediate steps to reconsider the applicant’s case for select list 2010 onwards. The State Government, thereafter, upgraded the ACRs of the applicant for the period 24.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 (2004-2005) and for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 (2008-2009) from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Outstanding’.

2.3 Pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 27.02.2014, the Review Selection Committee of the UPSC met to reconsider the case of the applicant. However, the Review Selection Committee again granted overall assessment of ‘Good’ to the applicant for the years 2010 and 2011. The applicant came to be appointed into the IAS for the select list 2012 on 27.03.2015. He was supplied the copy of minutes of Review Selection Committee dated 14.07.2014 and thereafter he approached this Tribunal.

2.4 It is the case of the applicant that the Review Selection Committee has not considered his upgraded ACRs and, therefore, they should be directed to again reconsider his upgraded ACRs and recommend his promotion for the panel year 2010 or 2011 instead of his actual selection for the panel year 2012. Thus, in effect the applicant is seeking antedating of his promotion from the State Civil Service to that of IAS.

3 . After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA.

3.1 The respondent No.2, in their affidavit, have stated that for the period/year for which the ACRs were upgraded by the State Government after the Selection Committee meeting held on 09.07.2012, the Review Selection Committee reassessed such ACRs and in respect of the period/year for which there was no material change (ACRs were not upgraded by the State Government), the Review Selection Committee decided to adopt the grading given by the Selection Committee which met on 09.07.2012. On this basis, the Review Selection Committee overall assessed Shri S.Y. Patil as ‘Good’ for both of the select lists. On the basis of this assessment, the name of Shri S.Y. Patil was not recommended for inclusion in any of the select lists of 2010 and 2011 by the Review Selection Committee. The re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 225

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSunil Y Patil – AppellantVersusM/o Personnel public Grievances And Pensions – RespondentO.A./322/2016

The Selection Committee for promotion to IAS is not bound by the grading given by the State Government in ACRs; it can independently assess officers. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of the expert committee.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Y Patil – Appellant
Versus
M/o Personnel public Grievances And Pensions – Respondent
O.A./322/2016