M.V. THIMMAIAH & ORS. versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.V. THIMMAIAH&ORS. 
V. 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
c 
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) 
Regulations, 1955; Regulations 2(l)(a), 3, 5 and 7: 
Promotion-Selection by promotion of Officers of State Civil 
Service to Indian Administrative Services-Selection Committee 
recommending names of candidates to Central Government for 
D consideration-Challenged by unsuccessful candidates alleging 
malafide, arbitrariness in selection by a Selection Committee not 
t 
.. 
properly constituted-Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: The 
Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine 
recommendations of a Selection Committee except on ground of 
E malatideslviolation a/Statutory rules-Allegation of malafide against 
Chairman/Member not substantiated-Though Divisional 
Commissioner, one of the members, nominated in the Selection 
Committee but not included in the selection process as the said post 
was abolished by State Government-But in the absence of a member, 
" ' .. 
F the Committee cannot be said to be not properly constituted in terms 
of provisions under regulation 3-Tribunal wrongly set aside the 
selection of two candidates on grounds that Annual Confidential Report 
was written after lapse of period of two years-Tribunal lost sight of 
the fact that the rules in connection thereof were repealed permitting 
G consideration of A. C.R. written after the due date/prescribed time 
period-Moreover, a candidate should not suffer for the lapses on the 
part of Reporting/Reviewing Officer-Normally, Selection Committee 
,.-
abide by the assessment made by reporting /reviewing officer-
t 
H 
624 
M.V. THIMMAIAH v.UNION PUBLIC SERVICE 
625 
COMMISSION 
However, it could make its own assessment in terms of guideline~ issued A 
by the Commission and also taking into consideration various factors 
relating to pe1formance of the candidates-Thus, review of assessment 
in respect of some candidates fully within the competence of the 
Committee-Hence, High Court was right in upholding the 
recommendations made by the Committee-Performance appraisal- B 
Delay in writing by Reporting/Reviewing Officer-Karnataka Civil 
·~ 
Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994; rr.6, 8 & 11/Karnataka 
Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000; r.13. 
State Government ofKamataka constituted a Selection Committee c 
to recommend candidates amongst the Non-State Civil Service Officers 
of Government ofKamataka to the Indian Administrative Service of 
Kamataka cadre. The Committee recommended the name of eight 
candidates. The selection was challenged by the unsuccessful candidates 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal on grounds of ma/a.fide and D 
; 1 
arbitrariness. The Tribunal set aside the recommendations of the 
Selection Committee holding that the Selection Committee without 
application of mind had awarded marks to the selected candidates in a 
discriminatory manner; and that the Selection Committee was not 
properly constituted as per the provisions of Regulation 3 of the Indian E 
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. 
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribuna~ selected candidates and also 
Union Public Service Commission filed writ petitions before the High 
Court. A Division Bench of the High Court held thatthe allegation of 
. " 
ma/a fide leveled againstthe Member of the Commission and Chairman F 
of Selection Committee was not well founded; and that the Selection 
Committee was properly constituted and the Committee did not act in 
arbitrary or discriminatory manner while awarding the marks to the 
selected candidates. Hence, the present appeals and Contempt Petition. 
Dismissing the appeals and also the Contempt Petition, the Court G 
--. 
HELD: 1. The appointment to the Indian Administrative Service 
from the State cadre can be made other than the State Civil Service in 
case an incumbent is having outstanding merit and ability. 
[Para 4] [632-F] H 
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. Th~re is no correlation of allegation of mala fide against the 
Chairman of the Selection Committee with the selection of the 
candidates for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. It is 
too far fetched to connect with this case that the Member of the 
Committee who was given the residential site in lieu of his service 
-
B rendered to the State, would necessaril

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