IMPORTANT POINTS
Courts cannot address questions of comparative merits of candidates.
Function of selection committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is therefore is not normally required to disclose reasons for its decision.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 06.04.2018 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017 allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, and quashing the appointment of the Appellant in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019 (“the Appellant”) to the Indian Administrative Service.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:

3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service (“the IAS”) from amongst non-State Civil Service officers (“non-SCS officers”) for the Selection Year 2014. The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No. 1, Aditya Narayan Roy and Respondent No. 9 in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019, Ram Prakash Sahni (“Respondent No. 9”), belonged to the Bihar Agricultural Service. The Department of Agriculture, along with other departments, was invited to recommend the names of two officials to the State Screening Committee for selection of ten persons to be recommended to the Union Public Service Commission (“the UPSC”) for final selection. The Selection Committee of the Department of Agriculture, headed by the Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated 07.08.2014, considered the names of four officials of the department, being the Appellant, Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 9, and one Ravindra Kumar Verma, and recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were then placed before the minister concerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed that Respondent No. 1’s name may be recommended. As a consequence, the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placing Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Before the State Screening Committee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, the Appellant was mentioned at Serial No. 14, Respondent No. 9 at Serial No. 15, and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 16. The State Screening Committee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten names for consideration to the UPSC, including the names of the Appellant and Respondent No. 9, but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant, the other being an official from another department. This was notified by the Department of Personnel Training vide notification No. 14015/4/2014-AIS(I)B dated 22.01.2015.

3.2 Respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’s appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State Screening Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC, for the UPSC to conduct a fresh assessment for his appointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in case of favourable recommendations.

3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s application, noting that the departmental minister’s order dated 11.08.2014 did not contain any finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the most meritorious candidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the non-inclusion of his name in the initial recommendation made by the Department of Agriculture. Thus, there was no illegality or mala fides in Respondent No. 1’s name occurring at Serial No. 3 in the list forwarded to the State Screening Committee, contrary to his argument that his name should have occurred at the top since he was the most meritorious. The Tribunal further reasoned that even if Respondent No. 1’s name had been at the top in this list, in the list prepared by the State Screening Committee he would still have figured only at Serial No. 14 instead of Serial No. 16, which was irrelevant, since the only pertinent aspect was that his name was considered along with other officials. The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s applicatio