GURDAYAL SLNGH FIJI versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 14-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
9o4 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
GURDAYAL SlNGH FIJI 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
October 14, 1981 
[ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
Constitution o.f India 1950, Article 32 and Indian Administrative Service 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955-Meniber of State Civil Ser1·ice 
Cadre-Adverse remarks i'n confidential roll-Certificate of intergity not granted-
I.A.S. Select List-Claim for inclusion-Whether niaintainable. 
The petitioner, a member of the State Provincial Civil Service, in his writ 
petition to this Court contended that he was one of the senior n1ost persons in 
the service, with a consistently good record, but because of two adverse remarks 
by two officers, certificate of integrity had not been given to him. and that the 
adverse remarks made against him were ma/a fide and unjustified and the refusal 
to grant him a certificate of integrity and to include his name in the I.A.S. 
Select List w_as wrongful and illegal. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD : L The I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the Select List 
is an independent body, The petitioner cannot claim to be included in the 
Select List as a matter of right. The Select List is prepared by the Selection 
Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of the suitability of the 
officer concerned and the recommendations made by the Selection Committee 
have to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission. [906 C-D] 
In the instant case the Selection Committee has not considered the petitiow 
ner to be· suitable to be included in the Select List and the Union Public Service 
Commission has agreed with the recommendation of the Sele.;tion Committee. 
The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the Select List must, therefore, 
fail. [906 E] 
2. The petitioner is now 55 years of age and the age bar in the matter of 
inclusion in the Select List deprives the petitioner from being included in the 
Select List. [906 F] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ; Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1980. 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Petitioner in person 
Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No. l. 
• 
GURDAYAL SINGH V. PUNJAB (A.N. Sen, J.) 
905 
P.A. Francis, N. Nettar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent 
A 
No. 15. 
Jitendra Sharma and 
P. Gour for Respondents Nos. 25-31, 
33-38, 41-43, 46·48 and 51·55. 
Respondent No. 58 in person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of 
the Punjab Provincial Civil Service, has presented this writ petition 
in person and he has argued his own case in person. 
The main grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition 
appears to be against the non ·inclusion of his nan:e in the LA.S. 
Select List. 
It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the senior-most 
persons in the service with a consistently good record of service on 
the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certi-
ficate of integrity has not been given to him. 
The Petitioner sub-
mits that the adverse remarks made against him were mala fide and 
unjustified and the refusal to grant him a certificate of integrity and 
not to include his name in the I.A.S. Select List is wrongful and 
illegal. 
As this writ petition may be disposed of on a short point, it 
does not become necessary for us to set out at length the various 
facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has taken us 
through the records and the various documents filed in support of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
his case made in the writ petition. 
F 
• 
Jn view of the grievance made by the Petitioner as to non-inclu-
sion of his name in the Select List, this Court by an order(') passed 
;;i 
on 9.3.1979 directed 
the I. A. S. Selection Committee to hold a 
special ineeting to consider the question of 
inclusion 
of the 
name of tl:e Petitio11er in the Select List. Pursuant to the order 
G 
passed by this Court, I.A.S. Selection Committee held a speci 
meeting on the 21.7.1979 and the Selection Committee found the 
Petitioner to be unsuitable for inclusion in the Select List. It may 
be noted that the I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the 
Select List is an independent body and recommendations of the 
ff 
(I) (1979] 3 S.C.R. ,18. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
906 
SUPREME COURT RllPOJlTS 
(1982] I S.C.R. 
f.A.S. Selection Committee further require to be approved by the 
Union Public Service Commission. The decision taken by the l.A.S. 
Selection Committ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.