UMA CHARAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 20-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
' 
-
• " 
' 
UMA CHARAN 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 
August 20, 1981 
[A. D. KosHAL, v. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND 
R. B. MISRA, JJ.] 
353 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955-Regu/a-
tion 5(5)-Scope of-Police Officer reverted to a lower rank-Reasons for reversion-
Whether necessary to record. 
A 
B 
c 
On being selected by a Selection Committee constituted under the Indian 
Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the appellant, a 
D 
Deputy Superintendent of Police prior to 13th April, 1960, was promoted as 
Superintendent of Police. 
In September, 1963, purporting to act under regulation 5 of the Regulations, 
the Selection Committee recommended his supersession, along with some others, 
on the ground that the Committee considered that the records of "the officers 
were not such as to justify their appointment to the Indian Police Service at this 
E 
stage". He was reverted in September, 1964. 
Before the High Court the appellant contended that the Selection Commi-
ttee's failure to specify the reasons for his supersession, in contravention of the 
Regulations, rendered the Jist non est. This plea was rejected. 
Allowing the appeal: 
HELD : The Select List reverting the appellant to a lower post prepared 
in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee contravened 
the mandate in sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 5. [358 G] 
Regulation 5(S) imposed a mandatory duty upon the Selection Committee 
to record its reasons for the proposed supersession. In the context of the protec-
tion conferred on public servants by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution it was 
incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated reasons in a manner which 
would disclose how the record of each officer superseded stood in rel a ti on to the 
records of others who were to be preferred. This is the only visible safeguard 
against possible injustice and arbitrariness in making selections. Had that been 
done it would have been possible to correlate facts on service records considered 
by the Selection Committee with the ccnclusions reached. [358 CJ 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982] I s.c.R. 
Reasons which are the links between the materials on which certain conclu-
sions are based and the actual conclusions disclose how the mind is applied to the 
subject matter for a decision, They should reveal a rational nexus between the. 
facts considered and the conclusions reached. [358 E] 
Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] I SCR 797; applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 2173 
of 1970. 
From the judgment and order dated 29th October, 1969 of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 89 of 1967. 
Gyan Chand Mathur and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant. 
D.P. Mohanty and R.A. Shroff for Respondent No. I. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL J. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single 
Judge of that Court dismissing with costs a petition filed by the 
present appellant under article 226 of the Constitution of India 
challenging his demotion from the post of Superintendent of Police 
to that of Deputy Superintendent of Po lice. 
2. The facts giving rise to the dispute between the appellant 
and the State of Madhya Pradesh are now admitted on all hands and 
may be briefly stated. Prior to 13th April 1960 the appellant was 
a member of the Madhya Pradesh State Police Service and was 
working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. On that date a 
meeting of the Committee set up in accordance with regulation 3 
of the India Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 
1955 (hereinafter called the Regulations) was held, and therein was 
prepared a list of such members of the State Police Service as were 
eligible and suitable for promotion to the Indian Police Service. 
The said Committee is popularly known as the "Selection Com-
mittee" and will be so referred to hereinafter. The list was approved 
by the Union Public Service Commission and thus became the 
Select List as envisaged in regulation 7 of the Regulations. The 
appellant was accordingly promoted.to the Indian Police Service and 
was posted as a Superintendent of Police which position he held till 
the impugned reversion effected by an order dated I Ith September, 
1964. The reason for that reversion was that on the 18th of 
) 
UMACHARAN v. M

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