UNION OF INDIA versus MOHAN LAL CAPOOR & OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 26-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
·. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MOHAN LAL CAPOOR & OTHERS 
September 26, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
797 
l.A..S./J.P.S. (Appointment by Pro111otiou) Regulations 1955- Regulation 
4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 5t4) & 5(5)-Efject of 11011-co111pliance with the 111andatory 
duty iniposed by Reg. 5 (5 )-If seniority should b2 do111i11a11t factor-Compe-
tence of Slate Government to pass rei'ersion orders. 
Natural ;ustice-Notice to superseded officers if necessary. 
Regulation 4( 1) of th~ 
Indian 
Admini!Strative 
Service/Indian 
Police 
Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 
1955 
provides 
for 
the 
Selection Committee to consider in every year the 
cases 
of all 
substantive 
members of the respective services who, on the first day of January of that 
year, had completed not less than 8 years' of continucus service in a post of 
Deputy Collector/Deputy Superintendent of 
Police. 
Under 
reg. 
5( i J 
the 
Com'.mittee has to prepare a list of such members as rsatisfied the condition in 
reg. 4 and as are held by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to the 
service. 
Regulation 5(2) enjoins that '·selection for inclusion in sucn list shall 
be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority." 
Regulation 5(4) enjoins that the "List so p~pared shall 
b.! 
reviewed 
or 
revised every year." Regulation 5(5) says that 
1·if in ~he process of seL:ction. 
review or revision it is proposed to supersede any memb;er of the State Civil/ 
Police Service the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed super-
scssion." 
The respondents have been members of the U.P. Civil (Executive) Service/ 
U.P. State Police Service. They were brought on the respective select lists of 
I.A.S./l.P.S. in 1961 and 1962 and since then they officiated 
as District 
Magistrates/Superintendents of Police for a number of years. The respon-
dents who were eligible for promotion came on the eelect list through the pro--
cedure for selection and continued on the select list until the list for 1968 was 
prepared in 1967 when a number of junior officers in both cases, whose names 
did not figure in the select list of 1967 were added in the select list for 1968. 
The rcsppndents were reverted to their substantive posts in the respective State 
Services. The reason sent to the Union Public Service Commission by 
the 
Selection· Committee for the displacement of each of the respondents was that 
on an "overall assessment, the records of these officers were not such as to 
justify their appointment to the respective service at this stage in preference to 
those selected." The High Court quashed the respective select lists 
and held 
(i) that the Selection Committee did not comply with the provision of reg. 
S (S) imposing a mandatory duty upon it to record its reasons for the proposed 
supersession (ii) that seniority sh0uld be the dominant factor for 
making 
selection for inclusion in the list to be prepared under reg. 5 ( 1) and that merit 
and suitability were only of ·secondary importance; (iii) that the State Governp 
meet had acted on the wrong assumption that it was competent to (lass rever-
sion orde~; (iV) that sinCe the aggrieved officers were punished in the sense 
that they. were, dealt with in an arbitrary fashion eat.h of them should' have 
been supplied with the reasons· for the supersession to enable them to make 
written representation to the UPSC. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HEID : per Beg J ., Mathew J. concurring : The mandatory prov1s1ons of 
reg. 5(5) were not complied with. It was incum9ent on the Selection Com-
mittee to have stated reasons in a manner which V.'ould disclose how the record 
of each officer superseded stood in relation to record of others who· were to 
be preferred particularly as this is practically the only remainin.I!: visible safe-
guard against possible injustice and arbitrariness in making selections. 
If that 
had been. done. facts on service records of officers consiifered bv the Selection 
committee would have been correlated to the 
conclusions reached. 
Reasons 
arc the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and 
the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind was applied to the subject 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
, 
[ 1974] 1 s.c.R. 
matter for a decision wh7ther it was purely administrative or quasi-judicial. 
They should reveal a rational nexus between the f.1cts considered and the con-
cl us1ons re

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