Union Pub.Service Commn.& Anr vs Naseer-Ud-Din Wani & Ors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7099 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 33234 OF 2009]

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NASEER UD.DIN. WANI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. We are not inclined to go into the larger issues

raised by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel

for the appellants with regard to the correctness or

otherwise of the orders of the Tribunal or of the High

court in the light of the limited relief that we feel

should be granted to the appellants. The two issues

raised by the appellants are that the orders of the

Tribunal and ipso facto the order of the High Court went

far beyond the scope of justified judicial interference

inasmuch that a re-assessment of the merit of respondent

No. 1. vis-a-vis the other candidates had not been made

CA NO. of 2011 @ SLP(C) 33234 of 2009

2

by a competent authority and a direction had straight-

away been made giving him appointment to the IPS Cadre

with effect from 1996 whereas the appellant UPSC had made

his allotment from the year 1997. We notice from the

Original Application filed by the respondent before the

tribunal that the primary prayer made by him was that the

State Government should re-write his Appraisal Reports

for the year 1998-99 by reviewing the decision of the

accepting Authority and to make the gradation on the

basis of the remarks written by the initiating officer

and on that basis re-consider his year of allotment to

the IPS Cadre. It will be seen, therefore, that the

corner stone of the respondent's case was his APRs should

be rewritten and upgraded so as to make him eligible for

allotment from the year 1996 as the Reviewing Authority

had downgraded his ACR for the year 1998-99 from "very

good" to "good but slow". As already indicated, the

Tribunal and the High Court have gone far beyond the

prayer and directed that he be given allotment from the

year 1996 which to our mind should have happened only

after the State Government had reviewed the APRs and

awarded a higher gradation for the year 1998-99.

4. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate,

in the circumstances, that the matter should be referred

to the State Government so as to enable it to make a re-

CA NO. of 2011 @ SLP(C) 33234 of 2009

3

assessment of the respondent's grading. We, accordingly,

request the State Government to take a decision thereof

within two months from the date a certified copy of the

order is supplied to the Chief Secretary to the State

Government. In case, the re-appraisal results in an

upgradation of the respondent's APR, the appellant UPSC

would once again (and in that eventuality alone) put the

matter before the Selection Committee which would take a

decision within four months thereafter as the respondent

is left with only about 1= years of service.

5. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of

the Tribunal and the High Court. Disposed of.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 11, 2011.