BAIDYANATH YADAVversusADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

                         [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427                          427


                     BAIDYANATH YADAV                                  A
                                 v.
               ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8847 of 2019)
                      NOVEMBER 19, 2019                                B
           [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                  AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
       Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – r.8
– Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by selection)
                                                                       C
Regulations, 1997 – IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955 – Judicial review of the process governing the selection of
non-SCS officers to the IAS – Scope of – The Selection Committee
of the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the
State Screening Committee which placed respondent No.1’s name
at Serial No.3 for selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS – Before   D
the State Screening Committee, in the list of 17 recommendations,
the appellant was mentioned at Serial No.14, respondent No.9 at
Serial No.15 and respondent No.1 at serial No.16 – The State
Screening Committee recommended ten names including appellant
and respondent No.9, but not respondent No.1 to the UPSC – Two
officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was         E
appellant – Respondent No.1 approached CAT for quashing
appellant’s appointment and for directions to the State Screening
Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC – Tribunal dismissed
respondent No.1’s application – Writ petition by respondent No.1
– High Court held that the State Screening Committee failed to         F
record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound
to do – High Court also held that respondent No.1’s name was only
one recommended to the UPSC previous year, so his name should
have figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations
– High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and
directed the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent         G
No.1’s name to the UPSC – On appeal, held: Tribunal or Court
cannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates – In the
instant case, it was not for the High Court to address questions of
comparative merit of the candidates and neither it is appropriate
for the Supreme Court – However, the Court may look into whether
                                                                       H
                                427
428            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala
      fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process – It was evident
      from the regulations and guidelines governing the process of
      selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as letter issued
      by the GAD, there was no relevance to the serial order in which
      the names of candidates were recommended – This was wrongly
B     weighed with the High Court – Further, a catena of decisions
      establish that even the principles of natural justice do not require
      a duly constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for
      its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so –
      There was no mandation for disclosure of reasons in the relevant
C     rules, regulations and guidelines – Further, there was no hint of
      arbitrariness, mala fides or bias in the recommendation of the
      officers including appellant – The decision of the High Court was
      without jurisdiction and therefore, set aside – Service Law.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
D           HELD: 1. It was concluded in M. Sathiya Priya that it was
      not for the High Court to address questions of comparative merit
      of the candidates, and neither is it appropriate for this Court to
      do the same. All this Court may look into is whether there was
      any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala fides
      or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. [Para 5.3] [436-
E     G]
            2. The names of two suitable persons per department were
      allowed to be submitted. In this scenario, the departmental
      Selection Committee recommended the names of the Appellant
      and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed before
F     the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’s
      name may be recommended, noting that he had been
      recommended the previous year, and there was no bar on
      recommending such a person again if he fulfilled all requisite
      criteria. Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture forwarded
      three names to the State Screening Committee, with Respondent
G
      No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Out of a total of seventeen
      recommendations received from various departments, the State
      Screening Committee recommended ten names for consideration
      to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but not Respondent
      No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by
H     the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant. [Para 8] [439-D-F]
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                       429


      3. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argument          A
that placing his name at the bottom of the list of
recommendations made by the departmental Selection
Committee even after he was recommended by the concerned
minister, and subsequently at Serial No. 16 instead of No. 14
before the State Screening Committee, prejudiced the selection
                                                                      B
process against him. However, as evident from the regulations
and guidelines governing the process of selection of non-SCS
officers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014 calling
for recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no relevance
to the serial order in which the names of candidates were
recommended by either the Department of Agriculture or the            C
State Screening Committee. The order of placement in the list
only acquires relevance at the stage of preparation of the Select
List by the UPSC Committee under Regulation 5 of the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations,
1997 read with the relevant guidelines. Thus, there is merit in
                                                                      D
the submission made on behalf of the Appellant and the State
Government that the order of placement of the candidates’
names in the lists prepared by the departmental and State
committees wrongly weighed with the High Court. [Para 9] [439-
G-H; 440-A-B]
      4. Additionally, as pointed out by the Respondent No. 1,        E
it appears from the records of the meetings of the State
Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No.
1’s name while assessing the merit of the recommended
candidates, on the ground that his name had not been
recommended by the departmental Selection Committee.                  F
However, the 1997 Regulations read with the relevant guidelines
indicate that no fault can be found with this approach. Though
the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that the
departmental minister’s approval was necessary for any
recommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this
did not confer any power upon him to recommend a name of his          G
own accord. Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’s
name being added to the list of two officials already recommended
by the departmental committee, more so when only two names
had been invited by the GAD, must be held to be irregular and
in violation of the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines.     H
430            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     Moreover, in such a scenario, it cannot be said that there was
      any malice or bias leading to the non-consideration of Respondent
      No. 1’s name by the State Screening Committee. [Para 9.1] [440-
      C-E]
            5. Moreover, this Court finds itself in disagreement with
B     the conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State
      Screening Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of
      reasons. A catena of decisions of this Court has established that
      even the principles of natural justice do not require a duly
      constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for its
C     decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so. [Para
      9.2] [440-F-G]
            6. As there is no such requirement mandating the
      disclosure of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and
      guidelines, there is no doubt in our minds that the procedure
D     adopted by the State Screening Committee cannot be faulted.
      [Para 9.3] [441-E]
            7. In any case, the direction issued by the High Court
      directing the State Screening Committee to recommend
      Respondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely without
E     jurisdiction. Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the
      selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a
      direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the
      names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant
      documents. It was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the
      merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of
F
      the Screening Committee. [Para 11] [442-E-F]
            National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences
            v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481 ;
            Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar
G           Sharma (2015) 12 SCC 600 – referred to.
            Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya
            (2018) 15 SCC 796: [2018] 6 SCR 701 ; M.V.
            Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13
            SCR 624 ; R.S. Dass v. Union of India (1986) Supp
H           SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 – relied on.
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                             431


                        Case Law Reference                                  A
(1992) Supp 2 SCC 481               referred to            Para 4.1
(2015) 12 SCC 600                   referred to            Para 4.1
[2018] 6 SCR 701                    relied on              Para 4.2
[2007] 13 SCR 624                   relied on              Para 5.1         B

[1987] SCR 527                      relied on              Para 9.2
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8847
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2018 of the High              C
Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017
      With
      Civil Appeal No. 8848 of 2019.
      Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Praveen Chandra, Somesh Chandra              D
Jha, Rahul Narang, M. Shoeb Alam, Advs. for the Appellants.
      R. Venkataramani, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Smarhar Singh,
Binay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Praveen Vignesh, Dhruv Sheoran,
Varun Chauhan, Samir Ali Khan, Ms. Pyoli, Anand Darshan, Chandan
Kumar, Rituraj Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.                        E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals arise against the final judgment and order of       F
the High Court of Patna dated 06.04.2018 passed in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017 allowing the appeal filed by Respondent
No. 1 herein, and quashing the appointment of the Appellant in SLP
(C) No. 12370 of 2019 (“the Appellant”) to the Indian Administrative
Service.                                                                    G
      3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:
       3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacancies
in the Indian Administrative Service (“the IAS”) from amongst non-
State Civil Service officers (“non-SCS officers”) for the Selection Year
2014. The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No. 1, Aditya             H
432            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     Narayan Roy and Respondent No. 9 in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019,
      Ram Prakash Sahni (“Respondent No. 9”), belonged to the Bihar
      Agricultural Service. The Department of Agriculture, along with other
      departments, was invited to recommend the names of two officials to
      the State Screening Committee for selection of ten persons to be
      recommended to the Union Public Service Commission (“the UPSC”)
B
      for final selection. The Selection Committee of the Department of
      Agriculture, headed by the Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated
      07.08.2014, considered the names of four officials of the department,
      being the Appellant, Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 9, and one
      Ravindra Kumar Verma, and recommended the names of the Appellant
C     and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were then placed before
      the minister concerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed that
      Respondent No. 1’s name may be recommended. As a consequence,
      the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the State
      Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placing
      Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Before the State Screening
D
      Committee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, the
      Appellant was mentioned at Serial No. 14, Respondent No. 9 at Serial
      No. 15, and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 16. The State Screening
      Committee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten names
      for consideration to the UPSC, including the names of the Appellant
E     and Respondent No. 9, but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two
      officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the
      Appellant, the other being an official from another department. This
      was notified by the Department of Personnel Training vide notification
      No. 14015/4/2014-AIS(I)-B dated 22.01.2015.
F           3.2 Respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative
      Tribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’s
      appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to
      recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State Screening
      Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name
      to the UPSC, for the UPSC to conduct a fresh assessment for his
G     appointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in case
      of favourable recommendations.
             3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s application, noting
      that the departmental minister’s order dated 11.08.2014 did not contain
      any finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the most meritorious
H     candidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the non-inclusion
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                               433
         [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

of his name in the initial recommendation made by the Department of           A
Agriculture. Thus, there was no illegality or mala fides in Respondent
No. 1’s name occurring at Serial No. 3 in the list forwarded to the State
Screening Committee, contrary to his argument that his name should
have occurred at the top since he was the most meritorious. The Tribunal
further reasoned that even if Respondent No. 1’s name had been at
                                                                              B
the top in this list, in the list prepared by the State Screening Committee
he would still have figured only at Serial No. 14 instead of Serial No.
16, which was irrelevant, since the only pertinent aspect was that his
name was considered along with other officials. The Tribunal dismissed
Respondent No. 1’s application noting that his case was based on
conjectures about being selected if his name had been recommended             C
to the UPSC committee, and that directing the State Screening
Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC would amount to
sitting in judgment over the evaluation of merit by the authorities.
       3.4 Respondent No. 1 filed a writ application seeking the setting
aside of the above order of the Tribunal, which was allowed by the            D
High Court. The Court reasoned that the State Screening Committee
had failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was
bound to do, in light of its absolute power over the trajectory of the
career of the aspirants to the IAS, and the mere presence of senior
officers on the committee would not by itself guarantee objectivity and
fairness in decision-making. Moreover, the Court held that since              E
Respondent No. 1’s name was the only one recommended to the UPSC
the previous year, which recommendation had remained in limbo, his
name should have figured as the first candidate in the list of
recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture. The Court
noted that upon examining the manner of consideration of names, it was        F
not satisfied of objectivity, fairness and the lack of consideration of
extraneous reasons in the selection process, with efforts to keep
Respondent No. 1 out of the process apparent at every stage.
       3.5The High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal,
directing that the State Screening Committee recommend Respondent
                                                                              G
No. 1’s name to the UPSC within two weeks, and that the UPSC
thereafter consider his case objectively. Such consideration would also
determine the fate of the Appellant, whose inclusion into the IAS cadre
would not create any right in his favour until the decision of the UPSC
on Respondent No. 1’s name. For the purpose of the consideration of
Respondent No. 1’s name, the post would be considered to be vacant            H
434            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     for the year 2014. After the State Screening Committee made its
      recommendation, the UPSC would be expected to hold an interview
      and evaluation of Respondent No. 1 preferably within a period of six
      weeks. This lead the Appellant and the State of Bihar to approach this
      Court by way of the instant appeals.
B           4. Heard the Counsel for either side and perused the record.
             4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Huzefa
      Ahmadi, argued that the High Court erred in giving weight to the serial
      order in which the names of the officers were placed before the State
      Screening Committee; non-disclosure of reasons by a selection
C     committee does not vitiate their decision, unless required by rules or
      administrative instructions (relying on National Institute of Mental
      Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2)
      SCC 481, and Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar
      Sharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600), which was not the case here; there was
      no direction by the departmental minister to keep Respondent No. 1’s
D     name at the top; and the direction for reconsideration of his name alone,
      rather than of all the recommended candidates, was beyond the
      jurisdiction of the High Court.
             4.2 Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. P. S. Patwalia,
      took us through the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
E     Selection) Regulations, 1997 (“the 1997 Regulations”), and submitted
      that the departmental Selection Committee and the State Screening
      Committee had undertaken a fair and objective assessment of the
      service records under the Regulations. He also pointed out that in the
      absence of any allegation of mala fides or bias, it could not be held
F     that there was any undue influence on the committee members. He
      ended by referring to the decision of this Court in Union Public Service
      Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796, emphasising
      that the High Court could not have reassessed the findings of the
      committees on merit.

G            4.3 It was submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1,
      Mr. R. Venkataramani, submitted that as per the 1997 Regulations, the
      officers were to be recommended by the State Government based on
      whether they possessed outstanding merit and ability, which was to be
      assessed based on objectively determinable criteria such as the Annual
      Confidential Records (“ACRs”) of the officers. Arguing that since all
H     of Respondent No. 1’s ACRs reflected better grading than the
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                               435
         [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

Appellant’s, having the grade “Excellent” with respect to every aspect        A
as opposed to P’s “Very Goods”, his non-selection reflected that the
selection committees had travelled beyond such ACRs in recommending
the Appellant’s name, and had thus acted arbitrarily. He also drew our
attention to the minutes of the meeting of the State Screening
Committee, which, while considering the recommended names, had
                                                                              B
noted that Respondent No. 1’s name had not been recommended by
the departmental Selection Committee and would hence not be
considered. It was argued that this had unfairly prejudiced Respondent
No. 1’s prospects, since the addition of his name to the list by the
Minister was completely valid, in light of the letter dated 22.05.2014 of
the General Administration Department (“GAD”), which specified that           C
the recommendations of the department had to be approved by the
concerned minister.
       5. At the heart of the dispute before us for consideration lies the
scope of judicial review of the process governing the selection of non-
SCS officers to the IAS, for which it is important to take stock of the       D
position governing judicial review of selections made by a duly constituted
expert body.
      5.1 It is by now well-settled that the scope of such review is
limited, and the Tribunal or Court cannot re-assess the merit of the
individual candidates. As observed by a 2-Judge Bench of this Court           E
in M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119:
      “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the
      candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection
      Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala
      fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot    F
      sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations
      of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This
      discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and
      courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of
      the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each
      candidate and record its opinion…”                                      G
      5.2 This view has subsequently been affirmed by this Court in
various decisions, including the recent decision of a 2-Judge Bench of
this Court in M. Sathiya Priya (supra), of which one of us was a
member. In this decision, this Court, while setting aside the re-
assessment undertaken by the Tribunal and the High Court of the               H
436             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     recommendations made by the Selection Committee to the UPSC for
      appointments to be made to the Indian Police Service by promotion,
      observed as follows:
            “17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It
            is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is
B           duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and
            the State Government who have expertise in the matter. In our
            considered opinion, when a High-Level Committee or an expert
            body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed
            the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not
            open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made
C           by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The
            question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the
            relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the
            assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection
            Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law
D           is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection
            Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not
            open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except
            in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on
            the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function
            of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals
E           over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise
            the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether
            a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided
            by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee.
            The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such
F           matters.”
                                                               (emphasis added)
             5.3 It can be concluded from the above that it was not for the
      High Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates,
      and neither is it appropriate for us to do the same. All we may look
G     into is whether there was any serious violation of statutory rules, or
      any bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. To
      address this question, it is essential to revisit the process prescribed for
      the selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS.
            6. Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment)
H     Rules, 1954 governs the selection of officers to the IAS by way of
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                              437
         [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

promotion or selection. While Rule 8(1) deals with promotion from the        A
State Civil Services, Rule 8(2) deals with selection from amongst
officers of outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with the
affairs of the State, who are not members of the State Civil Service
but hold a gazetted post in a substantive capacity, i.e. non-SCS officers.
      6.1 The 1997 Regulations were framed in pursuance of Rule 8(2).        B
As per Regulation 4, the State Government is required to recommend
the names of persons as described in Rule 8(2), for consideration of
the Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the IAS (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (“the 1955 Regulations”), comprising
members of the UPSC (“the UPSC Committee”). Such persons must
also have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of        C
the year in which their case is being considered, by which time they
must have completed a minimum of eight years of continuous service
under the State Government in any post which has been declared
equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service.
Such persons must also not have been selected in an earlier list for
                                                                             D
appointment to the IAS and subsequently not been appointed by the
Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Regulation 9.
The number of persons recommended by the State Government may
not exceed five times the number of vacancies proposed to be filled
during the year.
       6.2 Regulation 5 provides that the UPSC Committee, upon               E
consideration of the names proposed by the State Government, may
recommend the names of as many persons as there are vacancies. The
suitability of a person for appointment to the IAS cadre is to be
determined by scrutiny of service records as well as through a personal
interview. After consultation with the State Government, a Select List       F
is to be prepared with the names so selected, and appointments are to
be made in the manner prescribed thereafter.
       6.3 After the above regulations came into force, guidelines were
formulated in 2003 for the selection of persons under
Regulation 5, which were circulated vide memorandum
                                                                             G
No. 4/14/2003-AIS. The guidelines pertain to the assessment of
candidates based on their service records and personal interview. In
Paragraph B.1 of the guidelines, it is outlined that out of a total of 100
marks to be awarded, equal weightage has to be accorded to the service
record, with particular reference to ACRs for the preceding five years,
and to the interview. Furthermore, the curriculum vitae of the candidate     H
438            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     may be kept in consideration while assessing the overall personality of
      the candidate during the interview.
             6.4 Paragraph B.2 states that on the basis of the assessment of
      the individual ACRs, the UPSC Committee may assign 10 marks for
      the “Outstanding” grade, 8 marks for “Very Good”, 6 marks for “Good”,
B     and 4 for “Average”, in the individual years of assessment. While
      assigning marks to the ACRs of the eligible officers, the broad guidelines
      for the 1955 Regulations may be followed. It is relevant to note that as
      per the 1955 Regulations, the Committee must also satisfy itself as to
      the integrity of the candidates based on the remarks on their confidential
      reports.
C
             6.5 Paragraph B.3 states that the minimum score necessary for
      a candidate to be selected is 50% marks in each component. Paragraph
      B.4 states that a merit list of selected candidates is to be prepared, in
      the sequence of the scores obtained, further providing that in case of a
      tie between officers, the older officer is to be placed above in the list.
D     Paragraph C lays down the topics which may be covered by the
      Committee during the personal interview.
             7. In accordance with the above regulations, the Principal
      Secretary, GAD, Government of Bihar had invited submissions of the
      name of the most suitable person from each department for the
E     recommendation of non-SCS officers for selection to the IAS, vide letter
      dated 22.05.2014. The important conditions required to be fulfilled for
      a valid recommendation to be made, as laid down in paragraph 3 of
      the letter, are reproduced below verbatim:
             “(b) The recommended officer should necessarily possess
F                 excellent qualification as per law and any prime-facie case
                  should not be proved against them.
              (c) While clearly entering the service-history of the officers,
                  for it, please attach separate sheet.
              (d) While preparing the particulars of their annual confidential
G                 remarks with Reporting, Monitoring and Acceptance,
                  Authority Grading, it be attached on separate sheet. As
                  well, updated full Character Encyclopedia be attached.
              (e) A certificate of non-pendency of any matter against the
                  officers before the Departmental charges, Cabinet
H                 (Monitoring) Department and Lokayukt Office, be sent, so
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                               439
         [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

             that, acceptance of the certificate of truthfulness would        A
             be appropriated totally.
        (f) previous posting particulars of the officers (Including pay-
            scale) be included.
             xxx
                                                                              B
        (h) Original copy of the proceedings of Selection Committee,
            attested copy with the nomination letter should be enclosed
            necessarily. On the recommendation of Selection
            Committee, approval of the Departmental Minister be
            received necessarily and this fact be clarified in the letter
            that on the recommendation of selection committee, the            C
            approval of Departmental Minister has been received. In
            case, its clear reference is not mentioned, the
            recommendation shall not be considerable.”
       8. Vide letter dated 23.07.2014, the names of two suitable
persons per department were allowed to be submitted. In this scenario,        D
the departmental Selection Committee recommended the names of the
Appellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed
before the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’s
name may be recommended, noting that he had been recommended
the previous year, and there was no bar on recommending such a person
again if he fulfilled all requisite criteria. Thereafter, the Department of   E
Agriculture forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee,
with Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. As mentioned supra,
out of a total of seventeen recommendations received from various
departments, the State Screening Committee recommended ten names
for consideration to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but not           F
Respondent No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS
by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant.
       9. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argument that
placing his name at the bottom of the list of recommendations made
by the departmental Selection Committee even after he was                     G
recommended by the concerned minister, and subsequently at Serial No.
16 instead of No. 14 before the State Screening Committee, prejudiced
the selection process against him. However, as evident from the
regulations and guidelines governing the process of selection of non-
SCS officers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014 calling
for recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no relevance to              H
440             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     the serial order in which the names of candidates were recommended
      by either the Department of Agriculture or the State Screening
      Committee. The order of placement in the list only acquires relevance
      at the stage of preparation of the Select List by the UPSC Committee
      under Regulation 5 read with the relevant guidelines. Thus, there is merit
      in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant and the State
B     Government that the order of placement of the candidates’ names in
      the lists prepared by the departmental and State committees wrongly
      weighed with the High Court.
             9.1 Additionally, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for
      Respondent No. 1, it appears from the records of the meetings of the
C     State Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No. 1’s
      name while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on the
      ground that his name had not been recommended by the departmental
      Selection Committee. However, the 1997 Regulations read with the
      relevant guidelines indicate that no fault can be found with this approach.
D     Though the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that the
      departmental minister ’s approval was necessary for any
      recommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this did not
      confer any power upon him to recommend a name of his own accord.
      Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’s name being added
      to the list of two officials already recommended by the departmental
E     committee, more so when only two names had been invited by the GAD,
      must be held to be irregular and in violation of the applicable rules,
      regulations and guidelines. Moreover, in such a scenario, it cannot be
      said that there was any malice or bias leading to the non-consideration
      of Respondent No. 1’s name by the State Screening Committee.
F            9.2 Moreover, we find ourselves in disagreement with the
      conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State Screening
      Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons. A catena of
      decisions of this Court has established that even the principles of natural
      justice do not require a duly constituted selection committee to disclose
G     the reasons for its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to
      do so. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this Court in
      National Institute of Mental Health (supra), which has also been
      subsequently affirmed in several cases, including Union Public Service
      Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma (supra). In National Institute
      of Mental Health (supra), the Court, following the decision in R.S.
H     Dass v. Union of India, (1986) Supp SCC 617, observed as follows:
  BAIDYANATH YADAV v. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.                               441
         [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

      “7. ... In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the   A
      Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is
      purely administrative... Administrative authority is under no legal
      obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed,
      even the principles of natural justice do not require an
      administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner
      to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person        B
      in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been
      stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India [1986 Supp
      SCC 617 : (1987) 2 ATC 628] in which Capoor Case [(1973) 2
      SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : (1974) 1 SCR 797] was also
      distinguished.                                                          C
      8. ... we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for
      decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the
      requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is
      the main requirement in the administrative action. The ‘fairness’
      or ‘fair procedure’ in the administrative action ought to be            D
      observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to
      this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being
      guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration...”
       9.3 As there is no such requirement mandating the disclosure
of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, there is no
                                                                              E
doubt in our minds that the procedure adopted by the State Screening
Committee cannot be faulted.
      10. Having thus found that the State Screening Committee was
correct in considering only the two names recommended by the
departmental Selection Committee, we now turn our attention to the
                                                                              F
crucial question of whether Respondent No. 1’s name was wrongly
excluded by the departmental Selection Committee itself, on account
of any bias, malice or arbitrariness.
       10.1 In this respect, the High Court observed that though
Respondent No. 1 had been recommended as the only candidate from
the Department of Agriculture in the previous year, 2013, such                G
recommendation was not acted upon since the meeting for the year in
question could not be held in time by the UPSC. It was further observed
that the notings revealed that the primary reason why Respondent No.
1’s name was not recommended in 2014 was because his name had
been recommended earlier. The Court noted that there was no clarity           H
442                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     on how the earlier recommendation came in the way of his name being
      recommended after a fresh exercise was initiated in 2014, which lead
      the Court to conclude that the non-recommendation of his name at the
      first instance appeared to be based on extraneous considerations.
             10.2 We find ourselves unable to agree with the above conclusion
B     of the High Court. As per the letter dated 30.05.2013 from the GAD
      to the Department of Agriculture, the previous year’s recommendation
      of Respondent No. 1’s name by the latter department had in fact been
      returned by the GAD for not being in consonance with the expected
      norms of recommendation. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that it is
      unclear which notings the High Court relied on to conclude that
C     Respondent No. 1 had not been recommended because of his earlier
      recommendation, it is evident that the High Court erred in observing
      that Respondent No. 1’s recommendation from the previous year had
      simply remained in limbo, and that his non-recommendation the next
      year was therefore suspect. Thus, we are of the view that there is no
D     hint of arbitrariness, mala fide or bias in the recommendation of two
      other officers, including the Appellant, by the Department of Agriculture
      in 2014.
             11. In any case, we find that the direction issued by the High
      Court directing the State Screening Committee to recommend
E     Respondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely without
      jurisdiction. Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection
      process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State
      Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving
      due consideration to all relevant documents. As already observed above,
      it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the
F     candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening
      Committee. Be that as it may, in light of the above discussion, we
      conclude that there is no case to direct the reconsideration of the
      seventeen candidates before the Screening Committee, or to interfere
      with the appointm©ents already made for the Selection Year 2014.
G            12. The decision of the High Court is therefore set aside, and
      the instant appeals are allowed.


      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeals allowed.

H