Holding

The Selection Committee's merit‑based classification and selection were lawful, seniority is secondary, and courts cannot sit in appeal over the Committee's expert assessment.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the promotion of Jawahar Santkhumar to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the 2004 selection year. A Selection Committee, under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, classified him as "Good" and did not include him in the Select List because only three vacancies existed and officers with higher overall grading were available. Santkhumar challenged the decision, alleging that seniority and a delayed seniority fixation should have secured his promotion and that the Committee failed to record reasons for his downgrading. The Court held that the Committee’s classification is based on merit, seniority is relevant only when merit is equal, and the Committee is not required to record reasons for its assessments. Consequently, the High Court’s finding of arbitrariness was set aside and the appeals were allowed. The judgment reaffirmed that courts have limited scope to review the expert assessment of the Selection Committee.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Selection Committee failed to follow uniform standards and should have promoted the first respondent.
Whether seniority considerations or the delay in seniority fixation affect promotion to the IAS.
Whether the Selection Committee is obligated to record reasons for grading or downgrading of candidates.
Whether courts can intervene in the merit-based assessment made by the Selection Committee.

Legislation cited

All India Services Act, 1951s. 3

Subjects

promotionIASSelection CommitteemeritseniorityAll India Services Actjudicial reviewadministrative lawrelative assessmentpromotion regulations

Judgment

628 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 14 S.C.R. 628
REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4626 of 2009)
B NOVEMBER 15, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 –
Regulations 5(1),5(4) and 5(5) – Meeting of the Selection
C
Committee for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
of Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004 was held against three
vacancies as determined by the Central Government – Name of the
first respondent considered along with the names of respondent
nos.4 & 5 – First respondent’s name could not be included in the
D Select List of 2004 – Respondent nos.4 & 5 appointed by the
Government of India – Challenged by the first respondent before
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench –
Rejected – Review application – Dismissed – High Court set aside
the order of the Tribunal – Held: While assessing the suitability of
the officers for promotion, the Selection Committee, as per the
E uniform and consistent practice followed in the matter of induction
to the All India Services, examines the service records of the
eligible officers, with special reference to their performance during
the last five years (preceding the year for which the Select List is
prepared), deliberating on the quality of the officer indicated in
F the various columns recorded by the reporting/reviewing/accepting
authority in the ACRs for different years – Selection Committee
considered the ACRs and made relative assessment to all the officers
under consideration – Name of the first respondent could not be
included in the Select List of 2004 as the overall grading given to
him by the Selection Committee was lower and there were only three
G vacancies – Since his name could not be included in the Select
List for promotion to the IAS Cadre in 2004, he was not considered
for promotion – Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is
strictly on the basis of merit, ability and suitability of the officers
– No merit in the contention of the first respondent that his seniority
would have enabled his name to be included in the Select List –
H
628
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 629
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS

Gradation is made by the Selection Committee on the merits based A
on the relative assessment – Seniority would become relevant only
when the merit of the candidates is equal – When the Selection
Committee has given its classification, the court cannot sit in appeal
over the assessment made by the Committee of experts – Judgment
of the High Court set aside– Further, challenge by the first
respondent to G.O. Ms. No.1125 datd. 26.11.2011 be considered B
on its own merits without being influenced by any of the views
expressed herein – All India Services Act, 1951 – s.3 – Service Law
– Promotion.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
C
HELD: 1.1 All India Services Act, 1951 has been enacted
for the purpose of regulating the recruitment and conditions of
service of persons belonging to the Indian Administrative
Services. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government has framed the IAS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955 (Promotion Regulations). In accordance with D
the provisions of the said Promotion Regulations, the Selection
Committee, presided over by the Chairman/Member of the
UPSC makes selection of the State Civil Service Officers for
promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. In Regulation
5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the number of vacancies
E
against which selection is to be made for a particular recruitment
year for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service of the
State Cadre is determined by the Government of India (DoPT)
in consultation with the State Government concerned.
Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to the
Commission along with seniority list, eligibility list (three times F
the number of vacancies) of the State Service Officers, integrity
certificates, details regarding disciplinary proceedings and details
of penalties imposed on the eligible officers etc. and complete
ACR dossiers of the eligible officers. When the Selection
Committee meet for selection for the recruitment year, the above G
documents are placed before the Selection Committee in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5(4) of the
Promotion Regulations. The Committee duly classifies the
eligible State Civil Service Officers included in the zone of
consideration as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” or
“Unfit”, as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A of their service records. Thereafter, as per the provisions of
Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection
Committee prepares a list by including the required number of
names firstly from the officers finally classified as “Outstanding”,
then from amongst those similarly classified as “Very Good” and
thereafter, from amongst those officers classified as “Good”.
B
While assessing the suitability of the officers for promotion, the
Selection Committee, as per the uniform and consistent practice
followed in the matter of induction to the All India Services,
examines the service records of each of the eligible officers, with
special reference to the performance of the officers during the
C last five years (preceding the year for which the Select List is
being prepared), deliberating on the quality of the officer as
indicated in the various columns recorded by the reporting/
reviewing/accepting authority in the ACRs for different years and
then after detailed mutual deliberation and discussion, finally
D arrives at a classification to be assigned to each officer. While
doing so, the Selection Committee determines the overall
grading recorded in the Confidential Reports (CRs) to ensure
that the overall grading in the CRs is not inconsistent with the
grading/remarks under various specific parameters or attributes.
The Selection Committee takes into account orders regarding
E appreciation for the meritorious works done by the officers
concerned and also keeps in view the orders awarding penalties
or any adverse remarks duly communicated to the officer, which,
even after due consideration of his representation are not
expunged. The UPSC after taking into consideration the records
F received from the State Government under Regulation 6 and the
observation of the Central Government received under
Regulation 6A of the Promotion Regulations, takes a final
decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee
in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the
Promotion Regulations. The selection of the State Civil Service
G Officers for promotion to IAS is made in a fair and objective
manner on the basis of relevant records and following the
relevant Rules and Regulations. The above procedure is
uniformly followed for all the States/Cadres in the matter of
induction to All India Services. [Paras 11-13] [637-D-H; 638-A-
H B-E-H; 639-A-B]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 631
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS

1.2 Insofar as the present case, the first respondent’s A
name was included by the State Government in the list of officers
eligible for consideration for the year 2004. Accordingly, the
Selection Committee also considered the ACRs and made a
relative assessment to all the officers under consideration. The
name of the first respondent could not be included in the Select
List of the year 2004 as the overall grading given to him by the B
Selection Committee was lower and there were only three
vacancies. Since the name of the first respondent could not be
included in the Select List for promotion to the IAS Cadre in
the year 2004, the first respondent was not considered for
promotion. Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is C
strictly on the basis of merit, ability and suitability of the officers.
The first respondent was ordered to be promoted to the cadre
of DRO by the order of the State Tribunal dated 26.06.2002. But
the first respondent’s seniority was refixed on 05.09.2005 vide
G.O.Ms. No.924. Of course, the first respondent’s seniority was
refixed by the State Government subsequent to the Selection D
Committee Meeting for 2004. [Paras 14, 17 and 18] [639-C-D;
640-A; 641-C-D]
M.V. Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service
Commission and Others (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13
SCR 624 – relied on. E
1.3 No merit in the contention of the first respondent that
his seniority would have enabled his name to be included in the
Select List. Gradation is made by the Selection Committee on
the merits based on the relative assessment. Seniority would
become relevant only when the merit of the candidates is equal.
F
Power to classify the candidates is the function of the Selection
Committee. In the process of selection under Regulations 5(4)
and 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee
is not required to record reasons by assigning overall relative
assessment in respect of the eligible officers or for selecting a
junior officer, having higher merit, in preference to that of a G
senior officer. [Paras 20, 22] [641-H; 642-A-B; 643-E-F]
R.S. Dass v. Union of India and Others (1986) Supp.
SCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 – relied on.
UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Others (2005) 10 SCC 15 –
held applicable. H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 1.4 When the Selection Committee has given its own
classification, the court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment
made by the Committee of experts. In the present case, neither
the decision of the Selection Committee nor the decision-making
process suffers from any arbitrariness. Since there was down-
grading of the first respondent for the assessment year 2004,
B
the first respondent was not included in the Select List. On
overall assessment of service records, the name of the first
respondent was not included in the Select List due to the
statutory limit of its size and as officers with higher grading in
the Select List were available as per the provisions of Regulation
C 5(5) of the Regulations. The High Court was not right in holding
that the Selection Committee has miserably failed to assess all
the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and that the
promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004
is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside.
D
In the result, the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed
by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of 2007
is set aside. Insofar as the challenge by the first respondent to
G.O. Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011, the same shall be
considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of
E the views expressed in this judgment. [Paras 24-26] [645-A-G-
H; 646-A-C]
Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya
and others (2018) 15 SCC 796 : [2018] 6 SCR 701 –
relied on.
F Case Law Reference
[2007] 13 SCR 624 relied on Para 17
[1987] SCR 527 relied on Para 20
(2005) 10 SCC 15 held applicable Para 23
G
[2018] 6 SCR 701 relied on Para 24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4626
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2008 of the High
H Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 33696 of 2007.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 633
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS

With A
C.A. No. 4628/2009
S. Satyam Reddy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, M. Yogesh Kanna,
S. Raja Rajeshwaran (In place of B. Balaji), K.K.S. Krishnaraj, Mohan
Murali, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Karri Venkata Reddy, Ms. Priyanka Das,
Arvind Kumar Sharma and Sachin Sharma, Advs. for the appearing B
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated C
17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition
No.33696 of 2007 in and by which the High Court set aside the order
of the Tribunal and directed the appellants and Union of India (DoPT)
to convene a Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the
promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the year
2004 and promote the first respondent herein to the IAS from the date D
when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-
A meeting of the Selection Committee for promotion to the IAS
of Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004 was held on 18.12.2004 against E
three vacancies as determined by the Central Government. The name
of the first respondent was considered by the said Committee along
with the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The position in the Eligibility
List (EL), Selection List (SL) and the overall relative assessment (ORA)
as assigned by the Selection Committee in respect of the first respondent
vis-à-vis that of the officers included in the Select List are as under:- F
Year Respondent No.1’s Name & Position of Selected Officers
Position
SL 2004 Name EL ORA SL
Vacancy: 03 In EL: S.No.04 TK Ponnusamy* 01 Very Good 01
Size of SL: 03 ORA: Good N Mathivanan 02 Very Good 02
Zone of In SL: Not included Smt. R. Vasuki 03 Very Good 03
Consideration: 09 G
*Included provisionally subject to clearance in
Criminal Proceedings pending against him
and grant of Integrity Certificate by the State
Government.

The first respondent was duly considered for promotion in the
year 2004 and assessed as “Good” for that year. However, on the H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A basis of overall relative assessment, the first respondent’s name could
not be included in the Select List of 2004 due to lower grading and
also due to the statutory limit on the size of the Select List. Respondent
Nos.4 and 5 who were included in the Select List have been appointed
by the Government of India by Notification dated 29.04.2005.
B 3. Aggrieved by his non-appointment to the IAS, the first
respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The said application was dismissed by
the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2007 holding that the first
respondent’s name was included by the State Government in the list of
officers eligible for consideration for the year 2004 and accordingly, the
C Selection Committee considered the first respondent’s ACRs and made
a relative assessment of all the officers under consideration. The
Tribunal pointed out that the Selection Committee makes its own
assessment on the basis of entries made in the various columns and
after discussion within the Committee, finally arrives at a classification
D “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” to be assigned to an
officer. Finding no irregularity by the Selection Committee in making
the relative assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by
the first respondent. The first respondent then filed review application
in RA No.27 of 2007 in OA No.749 of 2006 seeking review of the
Tribunal’s order dated 31.08.2007 and the said review petition came to
E be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, the first
respondent filed writ petition in WP No.33696 of 2007. The High Court
held that the Tribunal by its order dated 26.06.2002 directed for fixation
of the first respondent’s seniority in the cadre of District Revenue
F Officer; but the seniority of the first respondent was not refixed within
a reasonable time by the State Government and the first respondent’s
seniority was refixed vide G.O.Ms. No.924 dated 05.09.2005 with a
long and unexplained delay of 39 months which is unfair and thus, has
caused much prejudice to the first respondent since in the meantime
his juniors namely respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted to the IAS.
G The High Court also held that as per Regulation 5(5), the classification
of an individual by the Selection Committee is very crucial and for the
year 2003, the overall assessment of the first respondent had been
adjudged as “Very Good” by the Committee; whereas the overall
assessment of the first respondent pertaining to Select List of 2004 was
H just “Good” and there was no reason whatsoever as to why suddenly
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 635
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the first respondent has been down-graded in his overall rating. The A
High Court also pointed out that for another person by name Shri T.K.
Ponnusamy who was rated “Unfit” in 2003, was rated as “Very Good”
in 2004 and there is no reason for such sudden hike in the classification/
overall rating of Shri T.K. Ponnusamy. The High Court held that when
T.K. Ponnusamy against whom criminal case was pending, was
B
preferred over the first respondent for inclusion in the Select List, the
same cannot be appreciated. The High Court set aside the order of
the Tribunal by holding that the Selection Committee and the Tribunal
failed to assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective
and directed the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to convene a
Selection Committee Meeting for reviewing the promotions made to the C
IAS for the year 2004 and promote the first respondent to the IAS from
the date when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential
benefits.
5. Being aggrieved, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
and the Government of Tamil Nadu have preferred these appeals. D
When the appeals were taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice
of this Court that the first respondent has been dismissed from the
service vide G.O.Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011 on the allegation of
possession of disproportionate assets and also on the ground of his
involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.37 of 2008 registered against
him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Trichy. E

6. Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has challenged
the order of dismissal from service dated 26.11.2011 by filing a writ
petition in WP No.28724 of 2011. It was stated that the High Court
has quashed the said dismissal order dated 26.11.2011 and the matter F
has been remanded back to the authorities for consideration afresh.
Since the above G.O.Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011 is a subsequent
event, we have considered the present appeals independently on its own
merit.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment, Ms. Binu Tamta, learned G
counsel appearing for the appellant-UPSC submitted that the High Court
erred in holding that had the first respondent’s seniority been fixed within
reasonable time, the first respondent would have been promoted to the
IAS. It was further submitted that the mere fact that the first respondent
was eligible and there was no case pending against him does not ipso H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A facto imply that his name should have been included in the Select List.
The learned counsel further submitted that the selection from the State
Civil Service Officers to IAS is strictly on the basis of merit, ability
and suitability of the candidates and seniority is considered only where
merit, ability and suitability are approximately equal. Placing reliance
upon UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15, the learned
B
counsel for the appellant submitted that the Selection Committee can
evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation
given in the ACRs and the High Court could not have faulted the
classification of the first respondent for the year 2004 as “Good”. The
learned counsel further submitted that inclusion of Shri T.K. Ponnusamy
C against whom criminal case was pending in the Select List in terms of
Regulation 5(5), was only provisional and the same could not have been
faulted by the High Court.
8. Reiterating the above submissions, Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned
counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu contended that the High
D Court was not right in holding that the authorities concerned acted with
prejudicial attitude and that an illegality was perpetuated on the first
respondent.
9. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent submitted
that when the State Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 26.06.2002
E restored the seniority of the first respondent making him senior to
respondent Nos.4 and 5, the State Government deliberately delayed
issuance of the order fixing the seniority of the first respondent and
the first respondent’s seniority was fixed by G.O.Ms. No.924 dated
05.09.2005 but in the meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were
F promoted to the IAS pursuant to the Select List of 2004 by the same
order G.O.Ms. No.924 dated 05.09.2005. It was submitted that the long
and unexplained delay of 39 months in refixing the seniority of the first
respondent is unfair and the same caused serious prejudice to the first
respondent. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that Regulation
5(2) stipulates that the Selection Committee shall consider the cases
G of Members of the State Civil Services in the order of seniority and
the High Court has rightly held that the seniority would influence the
process of selection. It was further submitted that no reasons have been
assigned by the Selection Committee for down-grading the first
respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The learned Senior counsel
H submitted that a person with tainted antecedents (Shri T.K. Ponnusamy)
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 637
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

had been rated as “Very Good”; whereas on earlier occasion, he was A
found “Unfit”, and there were no valid reasons for down-grading the
first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The High Court,
therefore, rightly held that the findings of the Selection Committee are
vitiated on account of non-application of mind and rightly issued the
directions to the appellants to convene a Selection Committee Meeting B
for reviewing the promotions made to the IAS for the year 2004.
10. We have considered the submissions of both sides and
carefully perused the impugned judgment and other materials on record.
The point falling for consideration is whether the High Court was right
in holding that the Selection Committee did not follow the uniform C
standards in classifying individual officers which has a direct bearing
on their selection to the IAS. Yet another point falling for consideration
is whether the High Court was right in directing the appellant to convene
a Review Selection Committee Meeting and promote the first respondent
to the IAS from the date his juniors were promoted with all
consequential benefits. D

11. All India Services Act, 1951 has been enacted for the purpose
of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons
belonging to the Indian Administrative Services. Under Section 3 of the
said Act, the Central Government has framed the IAS (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Promotion Regulations). In E
accordance with the provisions of the said Promotion Regulations, the
Selection Committee, presided over by the Chairman/Member of the
UPSC makes selection of the State Civil Service Officers for promotion
to the Indian Administrative Service. In Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion
Regulations, the number of vacancies against which selection is to be F
made for a particular recruitment year for promotion to the Indian
Administrative Service of the State Cadre is determined by the
Government of India (DoPT) in consultation with the State Government
concerned. Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to
the Commission along with seniority list, eligibility list (three times the
G
number of vacancies) of the State Service Officers, integrity certificates,
details regarding disciplinary proceedings and details of penalties
imposed on the eligible officers etc. and complete ACR dossiers of the
eligible officers. When the Selection Committee meet for selection for
the recruitment year, the above documents are placed before the
Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of Regulation H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations. The Committee duly classifies the
eligible State Civil Service Officers included in the zone of consideration
as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” or “Unfit”, as the case may
be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records.
Thereafter, as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion
B Regulations, the Selection Committee prepares a list by including the
required number of names firstly from the officers finally classified as
“Outstanding”, then from amongst those similarly classified as “Very
Good” and thereafter, from amongst those officers classified as “Good”.
The relevant part of the Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) reads as under:-

C “5(4). The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers
as “Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ as the case
may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records.
5(5). The List shall be prepared by including the required number
of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as
‘Outstanding’ then from amongst those similarly classified as
D
‘Very Good’ and thereafter from amongst those similarly
classified as ‘Good’ and the order of names inter-se within each
category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Civil
Service.”
12. While assessing the suitability of the officers for promotion,
E the Selection Committee, as per the uniform and consistent practice
followed in the matter of induction to the All India Services, examines
the service records of each of the eligible officers, with special reference
to the performance of the officers during the last five years (preceding
the year for which the Select List is being prepared), deliberating on
F the quality of the officer as indicated in the various columns recorded
by the reporting/reviewing/accepting authority in the ACRs for different
years and then after detailed mutual deliberation and discussion, finally
arrives at a classification to be assigned to each officer.
13. While doing so, the Selection Committee determines the
G overall grading recorded in the Confidential Reports (CRs) to ensure
that the overall grading in the CRs is not inconsistent with the grading/
remarks under various specific parameters or attributes. The Selection
Committee takes into account orders regarding appreciation for the
meritorious works done by the officers concerned and also keeps in
view the orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks duly
H communicated to the officer, which, even after due consideration of
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 639
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

his representation are not expunged. The UPSC after taking into A
consideration the records received from the State Government under
Regulation 6 and the observation of the Central Government received
under Regulation 6A of the Promotion Regulations, takes a final decision
on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in accordance with
the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Promotion Regulations. The
B
selection of the State Civil Service Officers for promotion to IAS is
made in a fair and objective manner on the basis of relevant records
and following the relevant Rules and Regulations. The above procedure
is uniformly followed for all the States/Cadres in the matter of induction
to All India Services.
C
14. Insofar as the present case, the first respondent’s name was
included by the State Government in the list of officers eligible for
consideration for the year 2004. Accordingly, the Selection Committee
also considered the ACRs and made a relative assessment to all the
officers under consideration. The name of the first respondent could
not be included in the Select List of the year 2004 as the overall grading D
given to him by the Selection Committee was lower and there were
only three vacancies. Since the name of the first respondent could not
be included in the Select List for promotion to the IAS Cadre in the
year 2004, the first respondent was not considered for promotion.
15. Contention of the first respondent is that though Shri T.K. E
Ponnusamy was having criminal case, his name was included in the
Select List and when the person having criminal case was included in
the Select List, the name of the first respondent ought to have been
included. The High Court also held that Shri T.K. Ponnusamy who
was classified as “Unfit” for the Select List 2003 has been adjudged
F
as “Very Good” for the Select List 2004 and the sudden hike in the
classification/overall rating of Mr. T.K. Ponnusamy has been remained
unanswered throughout.
16. Of course, Shri T.K. Ponnusamy was having a criminal case;
but as noted above, he was included provisionally in the Select List 2004
G
subject to his clearance in the criminal case pending against him and
grant of integrity certificate by the State Government and such an officer
who is included in the zone of consideration has to be considered even
if disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. We find substance
in the contention of the appellant-UPSC that the Selection Committee
acted strictly in accordance with the Regulations which are statutory H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A in nature and the selection of respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not,
therefore, suffer from any violation of statutory rules.
17. Selection from the State Civil Service to IAS is strictly on
the basis of merit, ability and suitability of the officers. In M.V.
Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and
B others (2008) 2 SCC 119, it was held as under:-
“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
C 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…….
D
……..
36. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, courts normally do
not sit as a court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the
Tribunal can be given this power to constitute an independent
E Selection Committee over the statutory Selection Committee. The
guidelines have already been given by the Commission as to how
ACRs to be assessed and how the marking has to be made.
These guidelines take care of the proper scrutiny and not only
by the Selection Committee but also the views of the State
Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after
F
scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central
Government for appointment. There also it is not binding on the
Central Government to appoint all the persons as recommended
and the Central Government can withhold the appointment of
some persons so mentioned in the select list for reasons recorded.
G ……. This assessment cannot be made subject of court’s or
Tribunal’s scrutiny unless actuated by mala fide.
37. …… The Selection Committee normally abides by the
assessment made by the reporting officer and the reviewing
authority. But the Selection Committee is not powerless. After
H reviewing the candidates’ performance, the Selection Committee
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 641
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

can certainly make its own assessment. The guidelines which A
have been issued by the Commission also enable the Selection
Committee to assess the remarks made by the reporting officer
or the reviewing officer and after taking into consideration various
factors like the meritorious work done or any punishment or
adverse remarks made or subsequently expunged on
B
representation can review the assessment about the candidates.
Such review of the assessment is fully within the competence
of the Selection Committee …...”
18. As pointed out earlier, the first respondent has been ordered
to be promoted to the cadre of DRO by the order of the State Tribunal
C
dated 26.06.2002. But the first respondent’s seniority was refixed on
05.09.2005 vide G.O.Ms. No.924. Of course, the first respondent’s
seniority was refixed by the State Government subsequent to the
Selection Committee Meeting for 2004. The High Court held that had
the first respondent’s seniority been fixed within reasonable time as per
the direction of the Tribunal, the first respondent’s classification/overall D
rating would have been correctly assessed by the Selection Committee.
The High Court further held that when a candidate of doubtful integrity
was considered, definitely, the first respondent would have also been
considered and promoted to the IAS and only because of the delayed
action of the State Government or improper action of the Selection
E
Committee, the prospect of the genuine candidate should not be put at
stake. With those findings, the High Court took the view that the first
respondent has been victimised for the simple reason that he has
approached the legal forum for redressal of his genuine grievances.
19. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent has
F
reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the High
Court rightly observed that non-fixation of seniority as directed by the
Tribunal within a reasonable time has prejudicially affected the case of
the first respondent in getting his promotion. The learned Senior counsel
submitted that as per Regulation 5(2), for inclusion in the Select List,
the Committee shall consider the cases of members of State Civil G
Service in the order of seniority and only because of delay in refixation
of the seniority, name of the first respondent could not be included in
the Select List.
20. We find no merit in the above contention of the first
respondent that his seniority would have enabled his name to be included H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A in the Select List. As discussed earlier, gradation is made by the
Selection Committee on the merits based on the relative assessment.
Seniority would become relevant only when the merit of the candidates
is equal. Observing that the seniority is considered only where merit,
ability and suitability are approximately equal, in R.S. Dass v. Union
of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 617, the Supreme Court held
B
as under:-
“18. The amended provisions of Regulation 5 have curtailed and
restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it
has given primacy to merit. Now the Committee is required to
categorise the eligible Officers in four different categories,
C namely “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” and “Unfit” on
overall relative assessment of their service records. After
categorisation is made the Committee has to arrange the names
of officers in the Select List in accordance with the procedure
laid down in Regulation 5(5). In arranging the names in the Select
D List the Committee has to follow the inter se seniority of officers
within each category. If there are five officers who fall within
the “Outstanding” category their names shall be arranged in the
order having regard to their inter se seniority in the State Civil
Service. The same principle is followed in arranging the list from
amongst the officers falling in the category of “Very Good” and
E “Good”. Similarly if a junior officer’s name finds place in the
category of “Outstanding”, he would be placed higher in the list
in preference to a senior officer included in the “Very Good” or
“Good” category. In this process a junior officer if categorised
“Outstanding” or “Very Good” would supersede his seniors. This
F cannot be helped. Where selection is made on merit alone for
promotion to a higher service, selection of an officer though junior
in service in preference to his senior does not strictly amount to
supersession. Where promotion is made on the basis of seniority,
the senior has preferential right to promotion against his juniors
but where promotion is made on merit alone, senior officer has
G no legal right to promotion and if juniors to him are selected for
promotion on merit the senior officer is not legally superseded.
When merit is the criteria for the selection amongst the members
of the service, no officer has legal right to be selected for
promotion, except that he has only right to be considered along
H with others. In Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab (1981)
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 643
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

4 SCC 419 this Court held that a member of State Civil Service A
has no legal right to promotion, instead he has only right to be
considered along with others. But assuming that appellants/
petitioners stood superseded by the reason that junior officers to
them were included in the Select List, no reasons were necessary
to be recorded in view of the amended statutory provisions.”
B
21. Re: Contention regarding down-grading and non-
recording of reasons:- From the UPSC File No.F.6/18/2003-AIS,
dated 24.12.2003, pertaining to the Select List of 2003, the ‘overall
relative assessment’ of the first respondent had been adjudged as “Very
Good” by the Committee. But, as per UPSC File No.F.6/18/2004-AIS
dated 18.12.2004 pertaining to the Select List of 2004, the ‘overall C
relative assessment’ of the first respondent has been adjudged just as
“Good”. The High Court held that there was no reason recorded as
to why suddenly the first respondent has been down-graded in his
classification/overall rating. The High Court has also pointed out that
Shri T.K. Ponnusamy who was classified as “Unfit” for the Select List D
of 2003, has been adjudged “Very Good” for the Select List of 2004
which shows that the Selection Committee was not following uniform
standard in classifying/overall rating of the assessment of the individual
which has a direct bearing on their selection to the IAS.
22. Power to classify the candidates is the function of the E
Selection Committee. In the process of selection under Regulations 5(4)
and 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee is not
required to record reasons by assigning overall relative assessment in
respect of the eligible officers or for selecting a junior officer, having
higher merit, in preference to that of a senior officer. In R.S. Dass v.
Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 617, the Supreme Court F
held that when any senior officer is superseded, the amended Regulation
5(5) does not require the Committee to record reasons for the
supersession and that the amended Regulations do not require the
Selection Committee to record reasons for the supersession of the
officers of the State Civil Service. G
23. After referring to R.S. Dass, in K. Rajaiah, the Supreme
Court held as under:-
“9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court
that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection
Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A grading to the first respondent. The High Court relied on the
decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health
& Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 481. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court,
the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of
the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under
B
no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is
no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record
the reasons. This Court then observed: (SCC p. 485, para 7)
“Even the principles of natural justice do not require an
administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an
C examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection
of a person 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 (SCC at p. 633)….”
…………
D
That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted
the so-called down gradation of the first respondent for one of
the years. Legally speaking, the term “downgradation” is an
inappropriate expression. The power to classify as “outstanding”,
“very good”, “good” and “unfit” is vested with the Selection
E Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process.
The classification given by the State Government authorities in
the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the
Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted
by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection
F Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at
variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has
been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-94.
Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection
Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is
desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the
G State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. But
having regard to the nature of the function and the power
confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is
not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for
classifying an officer at variance with the State Government’s
H decision.” [Underlining added]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAWAHAR 645
SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

24. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the case A
in hand. When the Selection Committee has given its own classification,
the court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the
Committee of experts. In Union Public Service Commission v.
M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796, the Supreme Court
held as under:-
B
“17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field.
It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and
is 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, C
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 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 D
the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection
Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law
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 E
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
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
F
by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee.
The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such
matters.” [Underlining added]
25. In the present case, we find that neither the decision of the
Selection Committee nor the decision-making process suffers from any
arbitrariness. Since there was down-grading of the first respondent for G
the assessment year 2004, the first respondent was not included in the
Select List. On overall assessment of service records, the name of the
first respondent was not included in the Select List due to the statutory
limit of its size and as officers with higher grading in the Select List
were available as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A Regulations. The High Court was not right in holding that the Selection
Committee has miserably failed to assess all the aspects of the case in
their proper perspective and that the promotions made to the IAS for
the vacancies of the year 2004 is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed.
The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is
liable to be set aside.
B
26. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed
by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33696 of 2007 is set
aside and these appeals are allowed. Insofar as the challenge by the
first respondent to G.O. Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011, the same shall
be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the
C views expressed in this judgment.

Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H