UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus L.P. TIWARI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 22-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A application before Tribunal challenging the selectien for the year 2002. The 
Tribunal, compared the merit and demerits of the parties as reflected in their 
Annual Confidential report, and gave the finding that patent material 
irregularities had been committed by the Selection Committee for the 
concerned year and hence the entire selection process was liable to be reviewed. 
B The Writ Petitions filed by the Commission were dismissed by High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the court 
HELD: 1. At no stage of the proceedings, either before the Tribunal or 
the High Court or even before this Court, has any allegation of malafides 
C been raised against the Selection Committee and the only grievance is that 
the Selection Committee erred while making assessment of the comparative 
merits of the respective candidates. The methodology which has been evolved 
and included in the Regulations for grading the eligible officers have been 
religiously followed by the Selection Committee which did not call for any 
D interference by the Tribunal. The High Court has merely followed the decision 
of the Tribunal without independently applying its mind to the facts involved. 
1276-B-D; 276-F-G) 
2. The evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily 
interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to 
E undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. It was not prudent 
on the part of the Tribunal to have adopted such a procedure which would 
amount to questioning the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee 
in preparing the Select List. (276-B; E) 
F 
UP.S.C. v. K. Rajaiah and Ors., (2005) to SCC 15, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5155 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.2006 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. Nos. 3718 and 3719 of2005 (S). 
G 
L.N. Rao, Ms. Binu Tamta for the Appellant. 
Ramji Srinivasan, Hari Shankar K., Vikas Singh, Santosh Kumar, Prashant 
Kr. Mishra, Gr. Capt. K.S. Bhati, D.S. Mabra and B.S. Banthia for the 
Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION"· L.P. TIW ARI [ALT AMAS KABIR, J.) 
273 
ALT AMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted. 
A 
Shri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No. l in the first matter and Shri DP. 
Dwivedi, respondent No. l in the second matter, were serving as State Service 
Forest Officers in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the office 
of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Both the said 
officers became eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service under the B 
provisions of the J.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') Regulation 3 of the said Regulations 
provides for the appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the 
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or where the Chairman is 
unable to attend, any other Member of the Union Public Service Commission C 
along with the following members as far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is 
concerned:-
(i) 
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P; 
(ii) 
Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests; 
(iii) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of M.P.; 
(iv) Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of M.P. and; 
(v) A nominee of the Govt. of India not below the rank of Joint 
Secretary to the Govt. of India. 
All meetings of the Selection Committee are presided over by the 
Chairman/Member of the Union Public Service Commission. 
In keeping with the Regulations, the Selection Committee classifies 
eligible State Forest Service Officers coining within the zone of consideration 
D 
E 
as "outstanding"; "very good"; "good" or "unfit" on an overall assessment F 
of their service records. Thereafter, as per Regulation 5 (4), the Selection 
Committee prepares a list by including the required number of names first from 
amongst officers classified as "outstanding" and then from amongst those 
classified as "very good'', and thereafter from amongst those classified as 
"good". The names within each category are set in the order of their respective 
inter se seniority in the said Forest Service. 
G 
The Annual Confidential Reports of the eligible officers form the basis 
on which such officers are categorized in the manner indicated above. However, 
while making ·an overall assessment, the Selection Committee

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