Union Public Service Commision vs Jawahar Santhkumar And Ors.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4626 OF 2009

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ...Appellant

VERSUS JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4628 OF 2009

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated

17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition

No.33696 of 2007 in and by which the High Court set aside the

order of the Tribunal and directed the appellants and Union of India

(DoPT) to convene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the

promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the

year 2004 and promote the first respondent herein to the IAS from

the date when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential

Signature Not Verified benefits.

Digitally signed by

2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-

MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.11.15 16:28:25 IST Reason:

1 A meeting of the Selection Committee for promotion to the IAS

of Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004 was held on 18.12.2004

against three vacancies as determined by the Central Government.

The name of the first respondent was considered by the said

Committee along with the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The

position in the Eligibility List (EL), Selection List (SL) and the overall

relative assessment (ORA) as assigned by the Selection Committee

in respect of the first respondent vis-à-vis that of the officers

included in the Select List are as under:-

Year Respondent Name & Position of Selected Officers No.1’s Position SL 2004 Name EL ORA SL Vacancy: 03 In EL: S.No.04 TK Ponnusamy* 01 Very Good 01 Size of SL: 03 ORA: Good N Mathivanan 02 Very Good 02 Zone of Consideration: 09 In SL: Not included Smt. R. Vasuki 03 Very Good 03 *Included provisionally subject to clearance in Criminal Proceedings pending against him and grant of Integrity Certificate by the State Government.

The first respondent was duly considered for promotion in the year

2004 and assessed as “Good” for that year. However, on the basis

of overall relative assessment, the first respondent’s name could not

be included in the Select List of 2004 due to lower grading and also

due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. Respondent

Nos.4 and 5 who were included in the Select List have been

appointed by the Government of India by Notification dated

29.04.2005.

2

3. Aggrieved by his non-appointment to the IAS, the first

respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The said application

was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2007 holding

that the first respondent’s name was included by the State

Government in the list of officers eligible for consideration for the

year 2004 and accordingly, the Selection Committee considered the

first respondent’s ACRs and made a relative assessment of all the

officers under consideration. The Tribunal pointed out that the

Selection Committee makes its own assessment on the basis of

entries made in the various columns and after discussion within the

Committee, finally arrives at a classification “Outstanding”, “Very

Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” to be assigned to an officer. Finding no

irregularity by the Selection Committee in making the relative

assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the first

respondent. The first respondent then filed review application in RA

No.27 of 2007 in OA No.749 of 2006 seeking review of the

Tribunal’s order dated 31.08.2007 and the said review petition came

to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, the first

respondent filed writ petition in WP No.33696 of 2007. The High

Court held that the Tribunal by its order dated 26.06.2002 directed

3 for fixation of the first respondent’s seniority in the cadre of District

Revenue Officer; but the seniority of the first respondent was not

refixed within a reasonable time by the State Government and the

first respondent’s seniority was refixed vide G.O.Ms. No.924 dated

05.09.2005 with a long and unexplained delay of 39 months which

is unfair and thus, has caused much prejudice to the first

respondent since in the meantime his juniors namely respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS. The High Court also held

that as per Regulation 5(5), the classification of an individual by the

Selection Committee is very crucial and for the year 2003, the

overall assessment of the first respondent had been adjudged as

“Very Good” by the Committee; whereas the overall assessment of

the first respondent pertaining to Select List of 2004 was just “Good”

and there was no reason whatsoever as to why suddenly the first

respondent has been down-graded in his overall rating. The High

Court also pointed out that for another person by name Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy who was rated “Unfit” in 2003, was rated as “Very

Good” in 2004 and there is no reason for such sudden hike in the

classification/overall rating of Shri T.K. Ponnusamy. The High Court

held that when T.K. Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was

pending, was preferred over the first respondent for inclusion in the

Select List, the same cannot be appreciated. The High Court set

4 aside the order of the Tribunal by holding that the Selection

Committee and the Tribunal failed to assess all the aspects of the

case in their proper perspective and directed the appellant and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to convene a Selection Committee Meeting

for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for the year 2004 and

promote the first respondent to the IAS from the date when his

juniors were promoted with all the consequential benefits.

5. Being aggrieved, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

and the Government of Tamil Nadu have preferred these appeals.

When the appeals were taken up for hearing, it was brought to the

notice of this Court that the first respondent has been dismissed

from the service vide G.O.Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011 on the

allegation of possession of disproportionate assets and also on the

ground of his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.37 of 2008

registered against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit,

Trichy.

6. Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing

for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has

challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 26.11.2011 by

filing a writ petition in WP No.28724 of 2011. It was stated that the

High Court has quashed the said dismissal order dated 26.11.2011

and the matter has been remanded back to the authorities for

5 consideration afresh. Since the above G.O.Ms. No.1125 dated

26.11.2011 is a subsequent event, we have considered the present

appeals independently on its own merit.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment, Ms. Binu Tamta, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-UPSC submitted that the High

Court erred in holding that had the first respondent’s seniority been

fixed within reasonable time, the first respondent would have been

promoted to the IAS. It was further submitted that the mere fact that

the first respondent was eligible and there was no case pending

against him does not ipso facto imply that his name should have

been included in the Select List. The learned counsel further

submitted that the selection from the State Civil Service Officers to

IAS is strictly on the basis of merit, ability and suitability of the

candidates and seniority is considered only where merit, ability and

suitability are approximately equal. Placing reliance upon UPSC v.

K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15, the learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the Selection Committee can evolve its

own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given

in the ACRs and the High Court could not have faulted the

classification of the first respondent for the year 2004 as “Good”.

The learned counsel further submitted that inclusion of Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was pending in the Select

6 List in terms of Regulation 5(5), was only provisional and the same

could not have been faulted by the High Court.

8. Reiterating the above submissions, Mr. Yogesh Kanna,

learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu contended

that the High Court was not right in holding that the authorities

concerned acted with prejudicial attitude and that an illegality was

perpetuated on the first respondent.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent submitted

that when the State Administrative Tribunal by its order dated

26.06.2002 restored the seniority of the first respondent making him

senior to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the State Government

deliberately delayed issuance of the order fixing the seniority of the

first respondent and the first respondent’s seniority was fixed by

G.O.Ms. No.924 dated 05.09.2005 but in the meanwhile,

respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS pursuant to the

Select List of 2004 by the same order G.O.Ms. No.924 dated

05.09.2005. It was submitted that the long and unexplained delay

of 39 months in refixing the seniority of the first respondent is unfair

and the same caused serious prejudice to the first respondent. The

learned Senior counsel further submitted that Regulation 5(2)

stipulates that the Selection Committee shall consider the cases of

Members of the State Civil Services in the order of seniority and the

7 High Court has rightly held that the seniority would influence the

process of selection. It was further submitted that no reasons have

been assigned by the Selection Committee for down-grading the

first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The learned Senior

counsel submitted that a person with tainted antecedents (Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy) had been rated as “Very Good”; whereas on earlier

occasion, he was found “Unfit”, and there were no valid reasons for

down-grading the first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The

High Court, therefore, rightly held that the findings of the Selection

Committee are vitiated on account of non-application of mind and

rightly issued the directions to the appellants to convene a Selection

Committee Meeting for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS

for the year 2004.

10. We have considered the submissions of both sides and

carefully perused the impugned judgment and other materials on

record. The point falling for consideration is whether the High Court

was right in holding that the Selection Committee did not follow the

uniform standards in classifying individual officers which has a direct

bearing on their selection to the IAS. Yet another point falling for

consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing the

appellant to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting and

8 promote the first respondent to the IAS from the date his juniors

were promoted with all consequential benefits.

11. All India Services Act, 1951 has been enacted for the purpose

of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons

belonging to the Indian Administrative Services. Under Section 3 of

the said Act, the Central Government has framed the IAS

(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Promotion

Regulations). In accordance with the provisions of the said

Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee, presided over by

the Chairman/Member of the UPSC makes selection of the State

Civil Service Officers for promotion to the Indian Administrative

Service. In Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the

number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a

particular recruitment year for promotion to the Indian Administrative

Service of the State Cadre is determined by the Government of

India (DoPT) in consultation with the State Government concerned.

Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to the

Commission along with seniority list, eligibility list (three times the

number of vacancies) of the State Service Officers, integrity

certificates, details regarding disciplinary proceedings and details of

penalties imposed on the eligible officers etc. and complete ACR

dossiers of the eligible officers. When the Selection Committee

9 meet for selection for the recruitment year, the above documents

are placed before the Selection Committee in accordance with the

provisions of Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations. The

Committee duly classifies the eligible State Civil Service Officers

included in the zone of consideration as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”,

“Good” or “Unfit”, as the case may be, on an overall relative

assessment of their service records. Thereafter, as per the

provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the

Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required

number of names firstly from the officers finally classified as

“Outstanding”, then from amongst those similarly classified as “Very

Good” and thereafter, from amongst those officers classified as

“Good”. The relevant part of the Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) reads as

under:-

“5(4). The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as “Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records.

5(5). The List shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as ‘Outstanding’ then from amongst those similarly classified as ‘Very Good’ and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as ‘Good’ and the order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Civil Service.”

10

12. While assessing the suitability of the officers for promotion, the

Selection Committee, as per the uniform and consistent practice

followed in the matter of induction to the All India Services,

examines the service records of each of the eligible officers, with

special reference to the performance of the officers during the last

five years (preceding the year for which the Select List is being

prepared), deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in

the various columns recorded by the reporting/reviewing/accepting

authority in the ACRs for different years and then after detailed

mutual deliberation and discussion, finally arrives at a classification

to be assigned to each officer.

13. While doing so, the Selection Committee determines the

overall grading recorded in the Confidential Reports (CRs) to ensure

that the overall grading in the CRs is not inconsistent with the

grading/remarks under various specific parameters or attributes.

The Selection Committee takes into account orders regarding

appreciation for the meritorious works done by the officers

concerned and also keeps in view the orders awarding penalties or

any adverse remarks duly communicated to the officer, which, even

after due consideration of his representation are not expunged. The

UPSC after taking into consideration the records received from the

State Government under Regulation 6 and the observation of the

11 Central Government received under Regulation 6A of the Promotion

Regulations, takes a final decision on the recommendations of the

Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of

Regulation 7 of the Promotion Regulations. The selection of the

State Civil Service Officers for promotion to IAS is made in a fair

and objective manner on the basis of relevant records and following

the relevant Rules and Regulations. The above procedure is

uniformly followed for all the States/Cadres in the matter of

induction to All India Services.

14. Insofar as the present case, the first respondent’s name was

included by the State Government in the list of officers eligible for

consideration for the year 2004. Accordingly, the Selection

Committee also considered the ACRs and made a relative

assessment to all the officers under consideration. The name of the

first respondent could not be included in the Select List of the year

2004 as the overall grading given to him by the Selection

Committee was lower and there were only three vacancies. Since

the name of the first respondent could not be included in the Select

List for promotion to the IAS Cadre in the year 2004, the first

respondent was not considered for promotion.

15. Contention of the first respondent is that though Shri T.K.

Ponnusamy was having criminal case, his name was included in the

12 Select List and when the person having criminal case was included

in the Select List, the name of the first respondent ought to have

been included. The High Court also held that Shri T.K. Ponnusamy

who was classified as “Unfit” for the Select List 2003 has been

adjudged as “Very Good” for the Select List 2004 and the sudden

hike in the classification/overall rating of Mr. T.K. Ponnusamy has

been remained unanswered throughout.

16. Of course, Shri T.K. Ponnusamy was having a criminal case;

but as noted above, he was included provisionally in the Select List

2004 subject to his clearance in the criminal case pending against

him and grant of integrity certificate by the State Government and

such an officer who is included in the zone of consideration has to

be considered even if disciplinary proceedings are pending against

him. We find substance in the contention of the appellant-UPSC

that the Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the

Regulations which are statutory in nature and the selection of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not, therefore, suffer from any

violation of statutory rules.

17. Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is strictly on the

basis of merit, ability and suitability of the officers. In M.V.

Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and

others (2008) 2 SCC 119, it was held as under:-

13

“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion…….

……..

36. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, courts normally do not sit as a court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the Tribunal can be given this power to constitute an independent Selection Committee over the statutory Selection Committee. The guidelines have already been given by the Commission as to how ACRs to be assessed and how the marking has to be made. These guidelines take care of the proper scrutiny and not only by the Selection Committee but also the views of the State Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central Government for appointment. There also it is not binding on the Central Government to appoint all the persons as recommended and the Central Government can withhold the appointment of some persons so mentioned in the select list for reasons recorded. ……. This assessment cannot be made subject of court’s or Tribunal’s scrutiny unless actuated by mala fide.

37. …… The Selection Committee normally abides by the assessment made by the reporting officer and the reviewing authority. But the Selection Committee is not powerless. After reviewing the candidates’ performance, the Selection Committee can certainly make its own assessment. The guidelines which have been issued by the Commission also enable the Selection Committee to assess the remarks made by the reporting officer or the reviewing officer and after taking into consideration various factors like the meritorious work done or any punishment or adverse remarks made or subsequently expunged on representation can review the assessment about the candidates. Such

14 review of the assessment is fully within the competence of the Selection Committee …...”

18. As pointed out earlier, the first respondent has been ordered

to be promoted to the cadre of DRO by the order of the State

Tribunal dated 26.06.2002. But the first respondent’s seniority was

refixed on 05.09.2005 vide G.O.Ms. No.924. Of course, the first

respondent’s seniority was refixed by the State Government

subsequent to the Selection Committee Meeting for 2004. The High

Court held that had the first respondent’s seniority been fixed within

reasonable time as per the direction of the Tribunal, the first

respondent’s classification/overall rating would have been correctly

assessed by the Selection Committee. The High Court further held

that when a candidate of doubtful integrity was considered,

definitely, the first respondent would have also been considered and

promoted to the IAS and only because of the delayed action of the

State Government or improper action of the Selection Committee,

the prospect of the genuine candidate should not be put at stake.

With those findings, the High Court took the view that the first

respondent has been victimised for the simple reason that he has

approached the legal forum for redressal of his genuine grievances.

19. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent has

reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the High

15 Court rightly observed that non-fixation of seniority as directed by

the Tribunal within a reasonable time has prejudicially affected the

case of the first respondent in getting his promotion. The learned

Senior counsel submitted that as per Regulation 5(2), for inclusion

in the Select List, the Committee shall consider the cases of

members of State Civil Service in the order of seniority and only

because of delay in refixation of the seniority, name of the first

respondent could not be included in the Select List.

20. We find no merit in the above contention of the first

respondent that his seniority would have enabled his name to be

included in the Select List. As discussed earlier, gradation is made

by the Selection Committee on the merits based on the relative

assessment. Seniority would become relevant only when the merit

of the candidates is equal. Observing that the seniority is

considered only where merit, ability and suitability are approximately

equal, in R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC

617, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“18. The amended provisions of Regulation 5 have curtailed and restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it has given primacy to merit. Now the Committee is required to categorise the eligible Officers in four different categories, namely “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” on overall relative assessment of their service records. After categorisation is made the Committee has to arrange the names of officers in the Select List in accordance with the procedure laid

16 down in Regulation 5(5). In arranging the names in the Select List the Committee has to follow the inter se seniority of officers within each category. If there are five officers who fall within the “Outstanding” category their names shall be arranged in the order having regard to their inter se seniority in the State Civil Service. The same principle is followed in arranging the list from amongst the officers falling in the category of “Very Good” and “Good”. Similarly if a junior officer’s name finds place in the category of “Outstanding”, he would be placed higher in the list in preference to a senior officer included in the “Very Good” or “Good” category. In this process a junior officer if categorised “Outstanding” or “Very Good” would supersede his seniors. This cannot be helped. Where selection is made on merit alone for promotion to a higher service, selection of an officer though junior in service in preference to his senior does not strictly amount to supersession. Where promotion is made on the basis of seniority, the senior has preferential right to promotion against his juniors but where promotion is made on merit alone, senior officer has no legal right to promotion and if juniors to him are selected for promotion on merit the senior officer is not legally superseded. When merit is the criteria for the selection amongst the members of the service, no officer has legal right to be selected for promotion, except that he has only right to be considered along with others. In Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 419 this Court held that a member of State Civil Service has no legal right to promotion, instead he has only right to be considered along with others. But assuming that appellants/petitioners stood superseded by the reason that junior officers to them were included in the Select List, no reasons were necessary to be recorded in view of the amended statutory provisions.”

21. Re: Contention regarding down-grading and non-

recording of reasons:- From the UPSC File No.F.6/18/2003-AIS,

dated 24.12.2003, pertaining to the Select List of 2003, the ‘overall

17 relative assessment’ of the first respondent had been adjudged as

“Very Good” by the Committee. But, as per UPSC File

No.F.6/18/2004-AIS dated 18.12.2004 pertaining to the Select List

of 2004, the ‘overall relative assessment’ of the first respondent has

been adjudged just as “Good”. The High Court held that there was

no reason recorded as to why suddenly the first respondent has

been down-graded in his classification/overall rating. The High

Court has also pointed out that Shri T.K. Ponnusamy who was

classified as “Unfit” for the Select List of 2003, has been adjudged

“Very Good” for the Select List of 2004 which shows that the

Selection Committee was not following uniform standard in

classifying/overall rating of the assessment of the individual which

has a direct bearing on their selection to the IAS.

22. Power to classify the candidates is the function of the

Selection Committee. In the process of selection under Regulations

5(4) and 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection

Committee is not required to record reasons by assigning overall

relative assessment in respect of the eligible officers or for selecting

a junior officer, having higher merit, in preference to that of a senior

officer. In R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC

617, the Supreme Court held that when any senior officer is

superseded, the amended Regulation 5(5) does not require the 18 Committee to record reasons for the supersession and that the

amended Regulations do not require the Selection Committee to

record reasons for the supersession of the officers of the State Civil

Service.

23. After referring to R.S. Dass, in K. Rajaiah, the Supreme Court

held as under:-

“9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the first respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed: (SCC p. 485, para 7) “Even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India 1986 Supp SCC 617 (SCC at p. 633)….” ………… That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so- called down gradation of the first respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term “downgradation” is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” and “unfit” is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State

19 Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-94. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government’s decision.” [Underlining added]

24. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the case in

hand. When the Selection Committee has given its own

classification, the court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment

made by the Committee of experts. In Union Public Service

Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796, the

Supreme Court held as under:-

“17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion, when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of

20 the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters.” [Underlining added]

25. In the present case, we find that neither the decision of the

Selection Committee nor the decision-making process suffers from

any arbitrariness. Since there was down-grading of the first

respondent for the assessment year 2004, the first respondent was

not included in the Select List. On overall assessment of service

records, the name of the first respondent was not included in the

Select List due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with

higher grading in the Select List were available as per the provisions

of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations. The High Court was not right

in holding that the Selection Committee has miserably failed to

assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and

that the promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year

21 2004 is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed. The impugned

judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be

set aside.

26. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008

passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of

2007 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. Insofar as the

challenge by the first respondent to G.O. Ms. No.1125 dated

26.11.2011, the same shall be considered on its own merits without

being influenced by any of the views expressed in this judgment.

………………………..J. [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………..J. [A.S. BOPANNA]

….………………………..J. [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi;

November 15, 2019

22