BAIDYANATH YADAV versus ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 19-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
BAIDYANATH YADAV
v.
ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8847 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 19, 2019
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – r.8
– Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by selection)
Regulations, 1997 – IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955 – Judicial review of the process governing the selection of
non-SCS officers to the IAS – Scope of – The Selection Committee
of the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the
State Screening Committee which placed respondent No.1’s name
at Serial No.3 for selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS – Before
the State Screening Committee, in the list of 17 recommendations,
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 recommended ten names including appellant
and respondent No.9, but not respondent No.1 to the UPSC – Two
officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was
appellant – Respondent No.1 approached CAT for quashing
appellant’s appointment and for directions to the State Screening
Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC – Tribunal dismissed
respondent No.1’s application – Writ petition by respondent No.1
– High Court held that the State Screening Committee failed to
record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound
to do – High Court also held that respondent No.1’s name was only
one recommended to the UPSC previous year, so his name should
have figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations
– High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and
directed the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent
No.1’s name to the UPSC – On appeal, held: Tribunal or Court
cannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates – In the
instant case, it was not for the High Court to address questions of
comparative merit of the candidates and neither it is appropriate
for the Supreme Court – However, the Court may look into whether
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427
427
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process – It was evident
from the regulations and guidelines governing the process of
selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as letter issued
by the GAD, there was no relevance to the serial order in which
the names of candidates were recommended – This was wrongly
weighed with the High Court – Further, a catena of decisions
establish that even the principles of natural justice do not require
a duly constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for
its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so –
There was no mandation for disclosure of reasons in the relevant
rules, regulations and guidelines – Further, there was no hint of
arbitrariness, mala fides or bias in the recommendation of the
officers including appellant – The decision of the High Court was
without jurisdiction and therefore, set aside – Service Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It was concluded in M. Sathiya Priya that it was
not for the High Court to address questions of comparative merit
of the candidates, and neither is it appropriate for this Court to
do the same. All this Court may look into is whether there was
any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala fides
or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. [Para 5.3] [436-
G]
2. The names of two suitable persons per department were
allowed to be submitted. In this scenario, the departmental
Selection Committee recommended the names of the Appellant
and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed before
the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’s
name may be recommended, noting that he had been
recommended the previous year, and there was no bar on
recommending such a person again if he fulfilled all requisite
criteria. Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture forwarded
three names to the State Screening Committee, with Respondent
No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Out of a total of seventeen
recommendations received from various departments, the State
Screening Committee recommended ten names for consideration
to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but not Respondent
No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by
the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant. [Pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.