UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SAMAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 08-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
SAMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND S.C. SEN, JJ.j 
Service Law-Appointment-Selection for appointment on a particular 
post-Scope of judicial review-Minutes of Special Committee not containing 
reasons for non inclusion of name of a candidate-Not a case of non ap-
plication of mind. 
Judicial Review-Appointments-Selection for appointment on a par-
ticular post-Scope of judicial review-Minutes of Special committee not 
containing reasons for non inclusion of name of a candidate-Not a case of 
non application of mind. 
Respondent 1, a member of the Indian Administrative Service 
· belonging to 1962 batch, was promoted as Additional Secretary. Appoint-
ments were made for the posts of Secretaries, but the respondent was not 
empanelled, hence he was not appointed as Secretary. The respondent filed 
a petition before the Tribunal challenging his non-inclusion in the panel. 
The Tribunal allowing the petition declared that the omission of the name 
of the respondent from the panel prepared for appointment to the post of · 
Secretary to the Government of India without proper consideration of the 
respondent's case was arbitrary, unsustainable and void and directed the 
appellants to consider the suitability of the respondent for empanelment 
and appointment afresh. The Tribunal held that while empanelment was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
on the basis of strict selection though the reason for non-inclusion in the 
panel need not be intimated to the officer concerned, the selection proceed-
ings should indicate as to how a senior member of the service did not 
deserve to be included in the panel and since there was nothing to indicate G 
in the minutes of the Special Committee of Secretaries or in the file 
relating to the empanelment anywhere that there has been an application 
of mind to the merits of the respondent and his suitability for being 
appointed to the post of secretary to the Government or equivalent post, 
the decision was taken without application of mind and thus arbitrary. 
This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the Tribunal. 
H 
253 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent submitted that since his performance had been 
rated as outstanding and excelled and that after his promotion to the post 
of Additional secretary, he had earned outstanding entries in the ACRs 
and excellent commendation from the Ministers concerned throughout, 
the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no proper considera-
B tion of the case of the respondent by the Special Committee. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : It is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the 
decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits 
C of the candidate. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not 
has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has 
the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision 
of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, 
such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the 
D Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved ma/a fides 
affecting the selection etc. So far as the question of suitability is concerned, 
the decision entirely rested with the Government. The Government is the 
sole judge to decide as to who is the most suitable candidate. The principle 
that administrative orders affecting rights of the citizens should contain 
reasons therefor cannot be extended to matters of selection and unless the 
E rules so require, the Selection Committee/Selection Board is not obliged 
to record reasons why they are not selecting a particular person and/or 
why they are selecting a particular person, as the case may be. The 
Tribunal looked into the minutes of the meeting of the Special Committee 
of the Secretaries to find out whether the name of the respondent was 
F 
placed before the said Committee for consideration for the purpose of 
empanelment. The Minutes show that the name of the respondent was 
aniongst the 81 l.A.S. officers of 1962 batch who were considered by the 
Special Committee. In the said minutes it was recorded that the Committee 
after screening the CR dossiers of all the officers and keeping in view their 
record and experience including the conceptual and leadership abilities, 
G achievements and 11otential for ge,neral management positions, had 

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