Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSAMAR SINGH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1161
- Decided
- 8 October 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S C AGRAWAL
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the selection committee’s decision was not vitiated merely because reasons were not recorded, and courts may interfere only on limited grounds, thereby setting aside the Tribunal’s order.
Summary
The respondent, an IAS officer of the 1962 batch, was promoted to Additional Secretary but was not empanelled for the post of Secretary. He challenged the non‑inclusion before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the Special Committee had acted arbitrarily by not recording reasons for his exclusion and ordered a fresh consideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of judicial review of selection decisions, emphasizing that courts may interfere only on grounds of illegality, procedural irregularity, or proven mala fides, not on the merits of suitability. The Court observed that the Central Staffing Scheme does not require the committee to state reasons for non‑selection and that the committee had duly considered the criteria prescribed. Consequently, the Tribunal’s direction was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑inclusion of the respondent’s name in the empanelment panel without recorded reasons violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Special Committee was validly constituted under the Central Staffing Scheme.
- Whether the court can review the merits of a selection decision or may intervene only on limited grounds such as illegality, procedural irregularity, or mala fides.
- Whether the requirement of reasoned orders applies to selection committees under the Central Staffing Scheme.
Subjects
service lawappointmentempanelmentselection committeejudicial reviewadministrative lawCentral Staffing SchemeIASnatural justicereasoned ordermala fides
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
SAMAR SINGH AND ORS.
OCTOBER 8, 1996
B
[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.
c
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. D
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. E
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 F
and appointment afresh. The Tribunal held that while empanelment was
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 recom-
mended 19 officers of 1962 batch of I.A.S. for inclusion in the panel for
holding the post of Secretary and 7 officers for holding non-secretarial
posts. The name of the respondent was not included in those lists. Merely
because the minutes of the committee did not contain the reason for
H non-selection of the respondent does not mean that there has been no
U.0.1.v. SAMARSINGH (S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 255
proper consideration of the merits and suitability of the respondent and A
as a result the selection was vitiated. From the minutes of the Special
Committee it was evident that in the matter of empanelment of officers the
Special Committee had taken into account the criteria that were laid down
for holding such selection and, therefore, it could not be said that the said
selection was vitiated on account of non-inclusion of the name of the B
respondent in the panel. The Central Staffing Scheme record was one of
the matters which had to be taken into consideration by the Special
Committee while making the selection. Apart from the record there were
other matters that had to be considered, namely, merit, competence,
leadership and flair for participating in the policy-making process and the
need of the Central Government which was the paramount consideration. C
It could not be held that since the performance of the respondent after his
promotion as Additional Secretary had been found to be excellent and
outstanding, the non-inclusion of his name from the panel by the Special
Committee must lead to the inference that there was no proper considera-
tion of the merit and suitability of the respondent for empanelment by the D
Special Committee. [259-G-H; 260-A-C; F; 261-E-H; 262-A-F]
Dalpat Abasahed Solunke and Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others,
[1990] 1 SCC 305; Dr. Jai Narain Misra v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1971] 1
SCC 30 and Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India and Others,
[19951 3 sec 383, relied on. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12855 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 539 of 1994. F
M. Chandra Shekharan, R.B. Misra, Kamalendra Mishra, Anil
Katiyar for the Appellants.
M.N. Krishnamani and Ashok Grover, Uma Nath Singh and Manoj
K. Singh for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Central Ad- H
-256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal'). It relates to empanelment and appointment on the post
of Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent post. Respondent
No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') is a member of the
Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S.) belonging to 1962 batch. In February
B 1990 he was promoted as Additional Secretary. In 1993 a Special Commit-
tee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Principal Secretary to the Prime
Minister and the Home Secretary prepared a panel of l.A.S. officers of
1962 batch for appointment as Secretaries to the Government of India or
equivalent post. The said panel was considered by the Appointments
C Committee of the Cabinet (for short 'ACC') of the Government of India
and appointments were made on the posts of Secretaries in March 1993.
the respondent was not empanelled and hence he was not appointed as
Secretary. Feeling aggrieved by the said non-inclusion in the panel, he filed
a petition (0.A. No. 539 of 1994) before the Tribunal which has been
allowed by the impugned judgment dated May 14, 1996. The Tribunal has
D declared that the action of the appellants in omitting the name of the
respondent from the panel prepared for appointment to the post of
Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent post without proper
consideration of his case is arbitrary, unsustainable and void and has
directed the appellants to consider the suitability of the respondent for
E empanelment and appointment on the post of Secretary to the Government
of India or equivalent post afresh as on the date on which respondents Nos.
2 to 10 herein were considered for empanelment after taking into account
Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the respondent for the relevant
period and other relevant facts and materials in the light of the guidelines
p contained in paragraph 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme and, if on such
consideration the respondent is found suitable, the Tribunal has directed
the appellants to consider his appointment on one such post.
The Central Staffing Scheme, as contained in the Officer Memoran-
dum dated July 15, 1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
G Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel &
Training), prescribes the procedure for selection for appointment of of-
ficers to Secretarial posts of and above the rank of Under Secretary to the
Government of India and to certain important non-Secretarial posts. Para-
graph 14 of the said Scheme relates to the posts of Additional
H Secretary/Special Secretary/Secretary and reads as under :
U.0.1.v. SAMARSINGH (S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 257
"14. Selection for inclusion on the panel of officers adjudged A
suitable for appointment to the posts of Additional Secretary or
Special Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India and posts
equivalent thereto, will be approved by the ACC on the basis of
proposals submitted by the Cabinet Secretary. In this task, the
Cabinet Secretary may be assisted by a Special Committee of B
Secretaries for drawing up proposals for the consideration of ACC.
As far as possible, panels of suitable officers will be drawn up on
an annual basis considering all officers of a particular year of
allotment from one service together as a group. Inclusion in such
panels will be through the process of strict selection and evaluation
of such qualities as merit, competence, leadership and a flair for C
participating in the policy-making process. Posts at these levels at
the Centre filled according to the Central Staffing Scheme are not
to be considered as posts for the betterment of promotion
prospects of any service. The needs of the Central Government
would be the paramount consideration. While due regard would D
be given to seniority, filling up of any specific post would be based
on merit, competence and the specific suitability of the officer for
a particular vacancy in the Central Government."
Before the Tribunal the respondent assailed his non-selection on the
following grounds : E
(i) the Special Committee has not been constituted in accordance
with the provisions contained in the Central Staffing Scheme inas-
much as one of the members, namely, Shri AN. Varma, Principal
Secretary to the Prime Minister, being a retired Secretary to the
Government of India, could not be legally appointed as members F
of the Committee;
(ii) the selection made by the Special Committee is vitiated because
officers junior to the respondent have been empanelled overlook-
ing the seniority and merit of the respondent; and
G
(iii) as the respondent had been empanelled and appointed as
Additional Secretary the non-inclusion of the respondent in the
panel amounts to a colourable exercise of power and was a result
of taking into consideration matters which are extraneous and the
selection is vitiated by legal mala fides. H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A None of these contentions found favour with the Tribunal. The
Tribunal held that the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister appointed
by the Government of India is also a Secretary discharging governmental
functions and there is nothing in the Central Staffing Scheme to show that
a serving Secretary alone can function as a member of the Special Com-
B mittee. The Tribunal also held that under the Central Staffing Scheme
appointment to the post of Additional Secretary/Special Secretary and
Secretary to the government of India and equivalent post are filled on
deputation basis on consideration of the various factors mentioned in the
said Scheme and such appointment is not by way of promotion but by way
of appointment after strict selection and evaluation of such qualifications
C as merit, competence, leadership and flair for participation in the policy
f'
making process and that the paramount consideration in making the selec-
tion is the need of the Central Government and that it is incorrect to say
that the seniority must be the determining factor for empanelment and
appointment to the post of Secretary to the Government of India. The
D Tribunal has further found that though respondent has alleged in his
application that the proceedings were vitiated by ma/a fides, it has not been
stated anywhere in the application that any one of the members of the
Committee of the Special Secretaries or the Cabinet Secretary or the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has any special reason to be
E prejudiced against him and that the allegation that some of the officers who
had completed the tenure of their deputation were allowed to continue as
Additional Secretaries and have been appointed as Secretaries to the
Government of India on the basis of the panel does not amount to an
allegation of ma/a fides since allowing any officer to continue beyond the
F period of tenure of deputation has nothing to do with the process of
selection and empanelment. The Tribunal has observed that even if the
respondent had excellent service record throughout his career and even
though he is senior to respondents Nos. 2 to 10, if the Cabinet Secretary
with the assistance rendered to him by the Special Committee of the
Secretaries did not find the respondent suitable for inclusion in the panel
G and found respondents Nos. 2 to 10 suitable for such inclusion, it is not
possible to infer legal ma/a fides if the case of the respondent had been
properly considered. The Tribunal was of the view that since there is no
reason to assume that preparation of the panel by the Cabinet Secretary
assisted by the Committee of Special Secretaries was not done properly, it
H could not accede to the prayer of the respondent to call for records of
U.0.1.v. SAMARSINGH [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 259
proceedings and the ACRs of the respondent as also of the officers who A
have been selected and empanelled and to make a comparative evaluation
of merits. The Tribunal, however, perused the selection file and the ACRs
of the respondent with a view to see whether the respondent has been duly
considered for empanelment is accordance with the guidelines contained
in paragraph 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme. On a perusal of the said B
ACRs the Tribunal has found that after his promotion on the post of
Additional Secretary in 1990 the respondent had earned outstanding
entries in the ACRs and excellent commendation from the Ministers
concerned throughout. The Tribunal has also referred to the Minutes of
the meeting of the Special Committee of the Secretaries held on December
22, 1992 for the purpose of drawing up of the panel for holding the post C
of Secretary and equivalent post and has pointed out that in the said
Minutes nothing is seen to be stated about the suitability or non-suitability
of the respondent. According to the Tribunal, while empanelment is 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 proceedings D
should indicate as to how a senior member of the service did not deserve
to be included in the panel. Since there is nothing to indicate 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 E
post of Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent post, the
decision was taken without application of mind and thus arbitrary. The
Tribunal, therefore, gave the direction referred to above.
In the matter of judicial review of a selection for appointment on a
particular post the law is well-settled by the decisions of this Court. In F
Dalpat Abasahed Solunke and Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, [1990]
1 sec 305, it has been laid down :
"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court
to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees
and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a G
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
groun~s, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996]SUPP. 7S.C.R.
A constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selec-
tion, or proved ma/a fides affecting the selection etc."
(pp. 310, 311)
In Dr. Jai Narain Misra v. State of Bihar and Ors., 19711 SCC 30, it
B was said;
"So far as the question of suitability is concerned, the decision
entirely rested with the Government. In other words, the Govern-
ment is the sole judge to decide as to who is the most suitable
candidate for being appointed as the Director of Agriculture. For
c discharging that responsibility it was open to the Government to
seek the assistance of the Public Service Commission. In our
judgment the High Court was not justified in calling for the records
of the Public Service Commission and going through the notings
made by various officers of the Commission as well as the cor-
D respondence that passed between the Commission and the
Government. The High Court over looked the fact that the Govern-
ment sought the assistance of the Commission and not that of the
High Court for finding out the most suitable candidate. In this case
there was no complaint of ma/a fides either on the part of the
Government or the Commission. That being so the interference of
E the High Court in the matter of selection made by the Government
was not called for."
(p. 32)
In Major General l.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India and Others, (1995]
F 3 sec 383, it has been held that the principle that administrative orders
affecting rights of the citizens should contain reasons therefor cannot be
extended to matters of selection and unless the 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
G particular person, as the case may be (at p. 389).
The Tribunal was conscious of the limitations on its power and has
observed:
"Once a competent authority makes a selection for appointment
H or empanelment considering all those who are eligible in accord-
U.O.I.v. SAMARSINGH (S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 261
ance with rules, instructions or guidelines then the Tribunal or A
High Court will not act as an appellate body and interfere on the
ground of insufficiency of the material or in correctness of the
decision applying its own yard stick. If the decision making process
is not vitiated the resultant decision cannot be interfered with by
the Tribunal on the ground that it if were the Tribunal which took
B
the decision it would not have been the same. Even if on a perusal
the file relating to the selection on a comparative assessment of
the merits of the applicant viz-a-viz respondents 3-11, the Tribunal
comes to a conclusion that the applicant was more meritorious
than them, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the selection and
empanelment." c
"If it is seen that the Cabinet Secretary assisted by a Special
Committee of Secretaries made a selection considering all the
eligible officers in the light of the guidelines contained in the
Central Staffing Scheme, then we are of the considered view that D
interference would not be justified even if a different view on the
selection may possibly be taken."
The Tribunal looked into the minutes of the meeting of the Special
Committee of the Secretaries held on Dece~ber 22, 1992 to find out
whether the name of the respondent was placed before the said Committee E
for consideration for the purpose of empanelment. The Minutes show, and
this fact is not disputed, that the name of the respondent was amongst the
81 I.A.S. officers of 1962 batch who were considered by the Special
Committee. In the said minutes it is recorded that the Committee after
screening the CR dossiders of all the officers and keeping in view their F
record and experience including the conceptual and l~adership abilities,
achievements and potential for general management positiOns, had recom-
mended 19 officers of 1962 batch of l.A.S. for inclusion in the panel for
holding the post of Secretary and 7 officers for holding non-secretarial
posts. The name of the respondent was not included in those lists.
G
This would show that the Special Committee, keeping in view the
record and experience including the conceptual and leadership abilities,
achievements and potential for general managements positions, had recom-
mended 19. l.A.S. officers for holding the post of secretaries and 7 I.AS.
officers for holding a non-secretarial post. Merely becaus~ the minutes of H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A the Committee do not contain the reason for non-selection of the respon-
dent does not mean that there has been no proper consideration of the
merits and suitability of the respondent and as a result the selection is
vitiated. From the minutes of the Special Committee it is evident that in
the matter of empanelment of officers the Special Committee has taken
into account the criteria that are laid down for holding such selection in
B paragraph 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme and, therefore, it cannot be
said that the said selection is vitiated on account of non-inclusion of the
name of the respondent in the panel.
Shri Ashok Grover, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
C respondent, has laid emphasis on the remarks in ACRs about appraisal of
the performance of the respondent subsequent to his promotion on the
post of Additional Secretary to which reference has been made by the
Trib1mal in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has submitted
that since the performance has been rated as outstanding and excellent,
D the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no proper consideration
of the case of the respondent by the Special Committee. We are unable to
agree. As is evident from paragraph 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme
record is one of the matters which has to be taken into consideration by
the Special Committee while making the selection. Apart from the record
there are other matters that have to be considered, namely, merit, com-
E petence, leadership and flair for participating in the policy-making process
and the need of the Central Government which is the paramount con-
sideration. We are unable to hold that since the performance of the
respondent after his promotion as Additional Secretary had been found to
be excellent and outstanding, the non-inclusion of his name from the panel
F
by the special Committee must lead to the inference that there was no ''
proper consideration of the merit and suitability of the respondent for
empanelment by the Special Committee.
For the reasons aforementioned, the directions given by the Tribunal
in the impugned judgment cannot be upheld and have to be set aside. The
G appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal dated May 14,
1996 is set aside and O.A. No. 539 of 1994 filed by the respondent is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
R.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search