IMPORTANT POINT
Evaluation made by an expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by Courts.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW - IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966 - Regulation 3 - Promotion to Indian Forest Service - Selection Committee classified eligible State Forest Service Officers coming within zone of consideration as “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” or “unfit” on overall assessment of their service records - Evaluation made by such an expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by Courts - Selection Committee assessed respondent as being “very good” and his name was included at serial No. 10 in select list - Respondents 4 to 8 were assessed as “outstanding” - Respondent No. 1 filed OA before CAT claiming that he ought to have been assessed as “outstanding” - Tribunal on comparison of merits and demerits of parties as reflected in their Annual Confidential Reports, came to finding material irregularities were committed by Selection Committee and entire selection process was liable to be reviewed - High Court upheld the order - Appeal - No allegation of any mala fide was raised against Selection Committee - Procedure adopted by Tribunal would amount to questioning the subjective satisfaction of Selection Committee - Methodology provided for in Regulations was strictly followed by Selection Committee - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : It is now more or less well-settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. Such view was reiterated as late as in 2005 in the case of U.P.S.C. vs. K. Rajaiah & Ors., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 15, wherein the aforesaid Rules for the purpose of promotion to the I.P.S. Cadre was under consideration. Apart from the above, at no stage of the proceedings, either before the Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court, has any allegation of mala fides been raised against the Selection Committee and the only grievance is that the Selection Committee erred while making assessment of the comparative merits of the respective candidates. While concluding his submissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that the direction given by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since the Regulations provided for selection to be made not by a Departmental Promotion Committee but by a Selection Committee constituted as per the Regulations.(Para 12)
       Although, on behalf of the respondents it has been urged that there was no bar which precluded the Tribunal from looking into the original ACRs of the respective candidates, what we are required to consider is whether it was at all prudent on the part of the Tribunal to have adopted such a procedure which would amount to questioning the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee in preparing the Select List. (Para 13)
       From the submissions made and the materials on record, we are satisfied that the methodology which has been evolved and included in the Regulations for grading the eligible officers have been religiously followed by the Selection Committee which did not call for any interference by the Tribunal. The High Court has merely followed the decision of the Tribunal without independently applying its mind to the facts involved.(Para 14)
       We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal as also that of the Tribunal.(Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - Leave granted.

2. Shri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No.1 in the first matter and Shri DP. Dwivedi, respondent No.1 in the second matter, were serving as State Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Both the said officers became eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service under the provisions of the I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) Regulation 3 of the said Regulations provides for the appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the Union Public Service Commission along with the following members as far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned:-

(i)Chief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P;

(ii)Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests;

(iii)Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Govt. of M.P.;

(iv)Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of M.P. and;

(v)A nominee of the Govt. of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.

3. All meetings of the Selection Committee are presided over by the Chairman/Member of the Union Public Service Commission.

4. In keeping with the Regulations, the Selection Committee classifies eligible State Forest Service Officers coming within the zone of consideration as "outstanding", "very good", "good" or "unfit" on an overall assessment of their service records. Thereafter, as per Regulation 5 (4), the Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required number of names first from amongst officers classified as "outstanding" and then from amongst those classified as "very good", and thereafter from amongst those classified as "good". The names within each category are set in the order of their respective inter se seniority in the said Forest Service.

5. The Annual Confidential Reports of the eligible officers form the basis on which such officers are categorized in the manner indicated above. However, while making an overall assessment, the Selection Committee also takes into account orders and remarks regarding appreciation for meritorious work done by the concerned officer. Similarly, orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks communicated to the officer and which have not been expunged are also taken into consideration while grading the officers.

6. In the instant case, a meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 12th and 13th December, 2002 to prepare the yearwise Select List for the years 2001 and 2002 for promotion to the I.F.S. cadre of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the aforesaid Regulations. The size of the Select List for the year 2001 was 11 and 9 for the year 2002. As the zone of consideration in each year is taken as three times the number of vacancies available, 33 names were considered for the 11 vacancies for the year 2001 and 27 names were considered for filling up the 9 vacancies for the year 2002. On an overall assessment of his service records, the Selection Committee assessed Shri L.P. Tiwari as being "very good". On such assessment, his name was included at serial no.10 in the Select List of 2001 for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were assessed as "outstanding" by the Selection Committee and were included at serial nos. 3 to 7 in the Select List.

7. Aggrieved by his placing at serial no.10 in the Select List, Shri L.P. Tiwari filed O.A.No.118/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming that he ought to have been assessed as "outstanding" and should have been assigned seniority in the Indian Forest Service Cadre over respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

8. Although, Shri D.P. Dwivedis name was also considered and placed at serial no.8 in the Select List for the year 2001 and he was also graded as "very good" by the Select

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1151

IMPORTANT POINTEvaluation made by an expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by Courts.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Evaluation made by an expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by Courts.