UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus HIRANYALAL DEV & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 22-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. 
v. 
IDRANYALAL DEV & ORS. 
MARCH 22, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1986-Section 29-1.P. 
C. -Selection by promotion-Powers vested in the Selection Committee 
under the Service Rules-Administrative Tribunal cannot assume the 
role of Selection Committee-Tribunal should direct Selection Commit-
tee to reconsider the matter. 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 
1955-Promotion of State Police Service Officers to JPS-Whether 
necessary to record reasons for non selection of a person. 
D 
'Supersession'-Concept of-Relevant in the context of 'promo-
tion' and not in contextof'selection'. 
Aggrieved.by his non-inclusion in the Select List for promotion of 
State Police Service Officers to the l.P .S. cadre, though two of his 
-
junior officers had been selected, Hlranyalal, respondent in both the 
,,... 
E 
appeals, r.Ied a Civil Rule in the Guwahati High Court, which stood 
transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati. The 
Tribunal held respondent's non selectio.n bad·iniaw on the ground that 
the Selection Committee had taken· iiito consideration certain adverse 
remarks in his Confidential Character Rolls, which had not been com-
municated to the respondent till the date of the meeting. of the Selection 
F 
Committee and which were later expunged on his representation. 
The Tribunal however went a step further, and on the basis of Its 
own assessment of the respondent's Confidential Rolls, assumed that he 
was entitled to be characterised "very good" and should be deemed to 
have been selected. After taking this view, the Tribunal passed the 
G 
operative order directing the respondent to be appointed lo the Indian 
Police Service with effect from the dale on which his immediate junior 
was appointed. It is this operative order which is being mainly chal· 
Ienged in these appeals by the Union Public Service Commission and the 
State of Assam. 
H 
The Tribunal also held that it was obligatory on the part of the 
302 
y 
J 
~ 
' 
·~· 
'I 
---+ 
U.P.S.C. v. H.L. DEV 
303 
Selection Committee to have recorded the reasons for superseding those 
who were senior. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: (1) The Selection Committee could not have taken into 
consideration the adverse remarks entered in the records which had not 
B 
been communicated to the respondent, and in any case could not have 
taken into consideration these remarks which were subsequently set 
aside by the State Government. l306B-C) 
(2) The legal effect of the setting aside of the adverse remarks 
would be that the remarks must be treated as non existent in the eye of c 
law. The Selection Committee had, therefore, fallen in error in taking 
into account these adverse remarks, which in the eye of law did not exist 
and which rould not have been lawfully taken into consideration. l306C-D I 
(3) The jurisdiction to make the selection vested in the Selection 
Committee. How to categorize in the light of the relevaot records and 
D 
what norms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the func-
tions of the Selection Committee. The Tribunal could not make a con-
jecture as to what the Selection Committee would have done or to resort 
to conjectures as to the norms to be applied for this purpose. [306D, E, GI 
(4) The Tnounal could not have substituted itself in place of 
E 
Selection Committee and made the selection as if the Tribunal itself was 
exercising the powers of the Selection Committee. [307 A-BI 
(5) The Tribunal should have directed that the Selection Commit-
tee reconsider the matter on the footing that there was no adverse 
remarks against the respondent and make a proper categorization on 
F 
the basis of the records by ignoring the adverse remarks but by applying 
the same standard and test adopted by it. [308E-F) 
( 6) The Selection Committee shall reconsider the impugned select 
list prepared in 1983 as if it was deciding the matter on the date of the 
selection on the footing that the adverse remarks made against the 
G 
respondent which were subsequently set aside did not exist in the 
records and shall consider the question as to whether he would have 
been appointed or Respondent No. 11 Shrl Sardar Pradeep Kar would 
have beeu appointed ou the basis of the categorization to which each of 
them was entitled having regard to the C.C. RoUs (ignoring the adverse 
remarks against Respondent No. 1 which were

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