http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 27  

PETITIONER: R.S DASS ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF ’INDIA & ORS.,

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1986

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  593            1987 SCR  (1) 527  1986 SCC  Supl.  617     JT 1986  1043  1986 SCALE  (2)1012  CITATOR INFO :  F          1988 SC1069  (7)  R          1990 SC1402  (26)  R          1992 SC1806  (7)

ACT:     Constitution of India,’ 1950--Arts. 14 and 16-Members of     State  ’Civil  Service      (Executive)--Promotion   to   Indian     Administrative Service--Selection--Merit sole basis--Senior-     ity--Whether confers any legal right on a Government servant     for promotion-- Whether such right protected by Arts. 14 and     16--Eligible  officers considered on merit in  an  objective     manner--Non-selection of seniors--Whether amounts to  super-     session--Whether  Selection  Committee      required  to  record     reasons for non-selection of seniors-- Whether      non--record-     ing of reasons under amended Regulation 5(4) and (5) of      IAS     (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations 1955  violative  of     Arts. 14 and 16.         Natural Justice--Civil Service--Promotion--Selection  on     Merit  alone--Eligible      officers considered on merit  in  an     objective  manner-Seniors  not      selected--Seniority--Whether     confers      any  legal right on a  Government  Servant--Whether     opportunity  required to be given to the superseded  officer     for   making  representation--Rules  of       natural   justice-     Application of--Depends upon the setting and the  background     of  statutory provisions, nature of the right  affected      and     the consequences which may entail.         Civil  Service--Indian Administrative Service  (Appoint-     ment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 Regulations 3, 5(4), (5)     &  (7), 6 and 8 and Indian Administrative Service  (Recruit-     ment) Rules, 1954--Rules 4 and 8(i)--Members of Punjab State     Civil Service (Executive)Promotion 40 Indian  Administrative     Service--Selection--Merit     alone        to         be     considered--Seniority--Whether confers any legal right on  a     Government  Servant for Promotion--Whether such      right  pro-     tected      by Arts. 14 and 16--Eligible officers t0 be  consid-     ered        in    an    objective    manner--Non-selection    of     seniors--Whether  amounts to supersession-Whether  Selection     Committee/State      Government  required to  give  reasons  for     non-selection  of  seniors--Non-recording  of  reasons       for     supersession--Select  List--Validity  of--Whether  Promotion     Regulations 3, 5 and 7 ultra vires Recruitment Rule 8(1).     Services--Categorisation of eligible officers as  ’Outstand-     ing’,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 27  

   528     ’Very       Good’,   ’Good’   and  ’Unfit’   for   purposes   of     Promotion--Basis  of categorisation should be objective      and     not merely subjective evaluation- Service record-- Character     roll entries-- Importance of.         Administrative action--Power--Vested in a high  authori-     ty-Whether  sufficient safeguard against  arbitrariness      and     misuse      of power--Presumption--Whether power would be  exer-     cised  reasonably-Judicial review--Scope, of Delay  in      for-     warding      comments  to  Public Service  Commission  by  State     Government--Whether constitutes mala fides.           

HELD:

   The Central Government under s.3 of the All India  Serv- ices  Act,  1951 framed Indian Administrative  Service  (Re- cruitment)  Rules, 1954. According to Rule 4 recruitment  to the  Indian  Administrative Service is made by:  (i)  direct recruitment through competitive examination; (ii)  promotion of  substantive members of the State Civil  Service  (Execu- tive) and (iii) selection from amongst persons holding posts in  substantive capacity in connection with the  affairs  of the  State, who may not be members of the State Civil  Serv- ice.  Under  Rule  8(1) the Central  Government  framed  the Indian  Administrative  Service (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations,  1955 laying down procedure for  selection  for appointment  to the service by promotion. Regulation 3  pro- vides  for the Constitution of a Selection Committee.  Regu- lation 5 provides that the Committee shall prepare the  list of  such members of the State Civil Service  found  suitable for promotion to the service on an over all relative assess- ments  of  the service. The State Government  shall  forward this list to the Union Public Service Commission along  with the  records  of the selected members as well  as  of  those proposed to be superseded together with the observations  of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee’ for consideration of the Union Public Service Commission and the  list  so  approved shall form the Select  List  of  the members of State Civil Service and shall be in force until a fresh list is prepared and approved for the subsequent year. Regulation 8 lays down that the appointment shall be made by the  Central Government on the recommendations of the  State Government in the order in which the names of members of the State Civil Service appear in the Select List. In the  proc- ess  of  preparing the Select List if the  seniors  are  not found  suitable for promotion and their names in the  Select List  are  not included and, if junior  officers  are  found suitable for the inclusion of the names in the Select  List, the  seniors stand superseded, as the selection is  made  on merit and not on the basis of seniority. Three members of the Punjab State Civil Service  (Executive) filed 529 separate  petitions under Art. 226 challenging the  validity of the Select List of 1978 for promotion to the LA.S. alleg- ing: (i) that they were eligible for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, but their names were not included in the Select List while names of officers Junior to them  were included,  thereby superseding them in an  arbitrary  manner without  recording  any  reasons; (ii)  that  the  mandatory provisions  of  Regulation 6 of  the  Indian  Administrative Service  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,  1955  were violated  as the service records of eligible State  Officers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 27  

including  the  petitioners had not been  forwarded  to  the Union  Public Service Commission; (iii) that amendment  made in  Regulation 5 deleting the provision which required  rea- sons to be recorded for the supersession of a State Officer, was  arbitrary  and violative of Article 14; (iv)  that  the Regulations  were  ultra vires being inconsistent  with  the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; (v) that  one officer had earned adverse remarks and yet he  was selected;  (vi)  that  important material  relating  to  the petitioners’  service including certificate and  letters  of recommendations were not considered by the Selection Commit- tee.     A Division Bench of the High Court by a Common Judgement in Baldev Kapoor’s case [(1980) 2 SLR 309] dismissed all the petitions holding that the Select List prepared for the year 1978  did  not suffer from any legal infirmity.  During  the pendency  of these petitions Select List for the  year  1979 was also prepared and the name of one of the petitioners was not included in that list also. Another writ petition  chal- lenging that Select List was also filed on the same  grounds and dismissed.     In  similar Writ Petitions, the Full Bench of  the  High Court  to whom the matter was referred for consideration  on the  question  as  to whether the Select List  of  1978  was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as reasons  for supersession of senior officers were  not  for- warded  to  the Commission, held that the  decision  of  the Supreme  Court in Chothia’s case [1978) 3 SCR 652]  did  not affect  the  position and the Division Bench’s  decision  in Baldev Kapoor’s case (supra) correctly laid down the law.     Appeals were filed in this Court and during their  pend- ency  15 other officers filed petitions under Art. 32  chal- lenging the validity of Select Lists for the years 1979  and 1980. Some other officers filed similar petitions  challeng- ing the validity of Select Lists prepared for the year 1983. Select  Lists for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and  1983  were challenged almost on similar grounds. 530     In  the present appeals and petitions, on behalf of  the appellants  and petitioners it was contended: (1)  that  the Select  Lists of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 were vitiated  as the Selection Committee did not record any reasons in super- seding  the  appellants/petitioners  while  excluding  their names  and  including the names of junior  officers  in  the Select Lists; (2) that the amendment of the Regulation  5(7) was violative of Articles 14 and 16 as it conferred unguided power  on the Selection Committee to supersede senior  offi- cers;  (3) that the Select List prepared for the  year  1978 was  vitiated  for non-compliance of  Regulation  6(iii)  as reasons recorded by the Selection Commitee were not forward- ed  by  the State Government to the  Commission  along  with record of officers proposed to be superseded; (4) that  even if  under  the Regulations no reasons were necessary  to  be recorded,  principles of Natural Justice and fair  play  re- quired. that reasons should have been recorded; (5) that the Select  Lists  prepared  for the years 1978  and  1979  were vitiated  on account of unauthorised participation  of  Shri LC.  Puri as a Member of the Selection Committee;  (6)  that the  Regulation  3 and 5 of the Promotion  Regulations  were violative of Rule 8(1) of the Recruitment Rules inasmuch  as the  Promotion  Regulations impinge upon the  State  Govern- ment’s power to make recommendations for appointment to  the service; (7) that the State Government deliberately  delayed its  comments  on the Select List prepared for 1980  to  the Public  Service Commission with a view to give undue  advan-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 27  

tage to the officers included in the 1979 list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. Dismissing the Appeals and Writ Petitions, HELD: By the Court (Mukharji & K.N. Singh, JJ.)     Having regard to the legislative history and the purpose and the object which was sought to be achieved by the amend- ments  there could be no mandatory legal obligation  on  the Committee  to record reasons. Regulation 6(iii)  merely  re- quired  the State Govt. to forward reasons if  recorded  for supersession  of the officers to the Commission, but  if  no reasons  were  recorded the State Government  was  under  no legal  obligation to forward the same to the Commission  and its  non-compliance  did not vitiate the  Select  List.  The entire  system of selection has been changed on  account  of amendment in the regulations. [552F-G; D-E]     Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1981]  1 SCR 904, followed. 531     Union  of  India  v. Chothia (H.P.) &  Ors.  etc.  etc., [1978]  3 SCR 652 and Union of India v. Mohan Lal  Capoor  & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797, distinguished.     P.C. Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SLR  and J.S’.  Chopra’s case [1980] 2 ILR Punj. 477,  approved.  Per K.N. Singh, J.     1.1 Regulation 5(5) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment  by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 provided  that if  in  the process of selection, review or revision  it  is proposed  to supersede any member of the State  Civil/Police Service the Selection committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. Regulation 5 was, however, amend- ed by Notification dated 3.1.1977. [545G]     1.2  The  amended provisions of Regulation 5  have  cur- tailed  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,  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  Regula- tion  5(5).  In arranging the names in the Select  List  the Committee  has to follow the inter-se seniority of  officers within  each category. In this process a junior  officer  if categorised "Outstanding" or "Very good" would supersede his seniors. [547A-E]     1.3  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 no legal right to promotion and if  juniors  to him  are selected for promotion on merit the senior  officer is not legally superseded. [547E-F]     2. I Article 16 ensures equality in matters relating  to appointment  and  promotion to an office or post  under  the State.  It enjoins State not to practise  discrimination  in matters relating to appointment, and promotion. A member  of the State Civil ServiCe eligible for selection for promotion to  the I.A.S. has right to be considered  alongwith  others for  selection for promotion. If eligible officers are  con- sidered  on  merit  in an objective  manner,  no  Government servant has any legal right to insist for promotion nor  any such right is protected by Article 14 or 16 of the Constitu- tion.  Article  16 does not insist that  reasons  should  be recorded for the non-selection of a member of a State  Serv- ice. [548A-C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 27  

532     2.2 In the absence of a statutory provision an  Adminis- trative  Authority  is under no legal obligation  to  record reasons  in support of its decision. There is no  scope  for applying  principles of natural justice in matters  relating to selection of suitable members of State Service for promo- tion to a higher service. [548D-E]     2.3  Rules of natural justice are not rigid rules.  They are flexible and their application depends upon the  setting and  the back-ground of statutory provisions, nature of  the right  which may be affected and the consequences which  may entail,  in the facts and circumstances of each case.  These principles do not apply to all cases and situations.  Appli- cation of these uncodified rules is excluded in the interest of  administrative  efficiency  and  expedition.   Sometimes legislation itself excludes the application of the rules  by express provision or by implication. [550B-D]     2.4  In the instant case, statutory Regulations  do  not expressly  or by implication apply the rule of audi  alteram partem in making the selection. On the other hand the scheme contained under the Regulations exclude the applicability of the  aforesaid rule by implication. Select List is  prepared each  year which ordinarily continues to be effective for  a year  or till the fresh Select List is prepared.  If  during the process of selection a senior officer is proposed to  be superseded  by  virtue of not being included in  the  Select List,  and if opportunity is afforded to him to make  repre- sentation  and  only thereafter the List is  finalised,  the process  would  be cumbersome and time  consuming.  In  this process  it will be difficult for the Committee  to  prepare and  finalise the Select List within a reasonable period  of time and the very purpose of preparing the Select List would be  defeated. Scheme of the Regulations, therefore,  clearly warrants exclusion of principles of audi alteram partem.  No vested  legal right of a member of the State  Civil  Service who  after being considered, is not included in  the  Select List is adversely affected. Non-inclusion in the Select List does not take away any right of a member of the State  Civil Service that may have accrued to him as a Government. There- fore, no opportunity is necessary to be afforded to him  for making  representation  against the  proposed  supersession. [550G-H; 551A-C]     A.K.  Kraipak  & Ors., etc. etc., v. Union  of  India  & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 457, Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha  & Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 791, Chairman Board of Mining Examination &  Anr.,  v. Ramjee, [1977] 2 SCR 904 and Union of  India  & Anr., v. Tulsiram Patel etc., [1985] 3 SCC 398, relied upon. 3.1 The scheme contained in promotion Regulations and the 533 criteria prescribed therein for preparing the Select List do not justify the apprehension that in the absence of  reasons there  would  be no objectivity and the selection  would  be made  in  an arbitrary manner over-looking the  claim  on  a senior officer eligible for promotion to the Indian Adminis- trative  Service.  The  principal object  of  the  promotion system as contained in the Regulations is to secure the best possible incumbents for promotion to the Indian  Administra- tive  Service which is the back-bone of  the  administrative machinery of the country. The efficiency of the  administra- tion  in the Union as well as in the State  largely  depends upon  the ’efficiency of the members of the Indian  Adminis- trative  Service.  Efficient  public service  is  in  public interest and the public interest is best secured if reasona- ble  opportunity  for  promotion exists  for  all  qualified members  of the State Civil Service and only those  who  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 27  

found  efficient and suitable in all respect  are  promoted. This  object is sought to be achieved by the Regulations  in prescribing merit as the sole test for promotion. [553B-D]     3.2 In order to judge the merit, the Regulations provide for  categorisation of eligible members of the  State  Civil Service  on  the basis of their service  records  which  are scrutinised  by  the Committee consisting  of  high  ranking officers of the State Government and the Central Government. The service records of all eligible officers whose names are included in the proposed Select List and the records of even those who are not selected is again scrutinised by the State Government and the Union Public Service Commission and  only thereafter  final shape is given to the Select  List.  There are, therefore, adequate checks and safeguards at  different stages by different authorities. The machinery designed  for preparation of Select List under the Regulations for  promo- tion  to All India Service, ensures objective and  impartial selection. Where power is vested in high authority, there is a  presumption that the same would be exercised  reasonably. However,  if the selection is made on extraneous  considera- tions,  in arbitrary manner, the Courts have ample power  to strike  down  the  same and that is  an  adequate  safeguard against  the  arbitrary  exercise of  power.  Therefore,  it cannot be held that in the absence of reasons the  selection would be made arbitrarily. [553D-H; 554A-C]     4.  There are various methods of selection viz. by  com- petitive  examination,  written  test-cum-viva-voce,  or  by assessment  of service records. For the purpose of  recruit- ment  to the Indian Administrative Service from amongst  the officers of the State Civil Service, latter method,  namely, selection  on the basis of scrutiny of service  records  has been accepted. [554E-F] 534 Parvez  Qadir  v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2  SCR  432, relied upon.     5.1  There  is hardly any scope for  applying  different standards  or  criteria at different times  as  the  service records,  namely, the character roll entries would  indicate the  category of the officers as adjudged by  the  authority recording annual confidential remarks. In Punjab the author- ity  competent  to record annual remarks  in  the  character coils  of members of the State Civil Service, has  been  di- rected to indicate the category of the officer, e.g. whether the  officer is "Outstanding", "Very Good" or "Good".  Under instructions  issued by the Union Government all  the  State Governments  are following similar pattern  in  categorising members  of  the State Civil Service in the  annual  remarks made  in  their  confidential  records.  This  has   brought uniformity in the character role entries. [555G-H; 556A-C]     5.2 Since category of members of State Civil Service  is available  in  their service records, the Committee  has  no discretion  to  disregard the same. Therefore, there  is  no merit  in the submission that Regulations 3 and 5  are  dis- criminatory  and  they  violate Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution. [556C-D]     6.1  The material placed on record leaves no doubt  that Shri I.C. Puri designated as Financial Commissioner  (Devel- opment) was also discharging the duties and functions of the Development  Commissioner.  He was, therefore,  holding  the dual charge as no separate post of Development  Commissioner had  been sanctioned by the Government. These facts  clearly show that for all purposes Shri Puff was working as Develop- ment  Commissioner. As Financial Commissioner  (Development) he was exercising same powers and discharging same functions which  could  he performed by  a  Development  Commissioner,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 27  

therefore  he was competent to participate in the  delibera- tions of the Selection Committee. Moreover, at no stage  any objection  was raised against functioning of Shri Puri as  a member  of the Selection Committee or his  participation  in the  deliberations. There is further no allegations of  mala fide or bias against Shri Puff. There is evidence on  record to  show  that recommendations of  the  Selection  Committee constituted  under Regulation 3 were unanimous,  which  were scrutinised  by  the State Government and the  Union  Public Service  Commission  before the same were  approved.  [557H; 558A-C]        6.2 In the instant  case, the validity of the  recom- mendations  made or the preparation of select List  of  1979 are not vitiated as Shri I.C. 535 Puri  was neither biased against any of the  appellant/peti- tioners,  nor  there was any conflict between  his  personal interest and duty. Shri Pun had no interest in the inclusion or exclusion of any member of the State Civil Service nor he had any personal interest in preparing the List. There is no allegation of bias or malice against Shri Puri. His partici- pation  in  the meeting of the Selection Committee  did  not render the Select List of 1979 illegal. [558H; 559A]     7.  The Central Government has framed promotion  Regula- tions which provide method and manner of selection.  Regula- tion  3 provides for constitution of Selection Committee  to prepare List of suitable officers in accordance with Regula- tion  5.  The  list so prepared is forwarded  by  the  State Government to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records and the observations of the State Government  in accordance  with  Regulation 6. Thereafter,  the  Commission considers the List under Regulation 7. The Commission  shall finally approve the List received from the State  Government with such modification as in its opinion it may be just  and proper  and  this List forms the Select List of  members  of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains in force  until its  review  and revision. Regulation 9 lays down  that  the appointment of members of State Civil Service shall be  mode by  the  Central Government on the  recommendations  of  the State Government in the order in which their names appear in the  Select  List. These Regulations do not  in  any  manner impinge  upon  the powers of the State  Government  to  make recommendations to the Central Government as contemplated by Rule  8  of the IAS (Recruitment)  Rules,  1954.  Therefore, Regulations 3, 5 and 7 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 are not ultra vires. [559F-H; B]     8. In the instant case, the Select List of 1979  contin- ued  to he effective till Select List for the year 1980  was finally  ap- proved.  The  officers included in the Select List  of  1979 were promoted and appointed to IAS before the final approval of  the Select List for the year 1980. Therefore, no  excep- tion can be taken to the validity of their appointment.  The delay  made by the State Government in forwarding  its  com- ments to the Union Public Service Commission with regard  to the 1980 List did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners as none them was selected for inclusion in 1980 List. Merely because  the State Government forwarded its  recommendations with  delay is not sufficient to justify inference that  the delay  was purposive with a  view to grant undue  favour  of select List and its final approval is time consuming,  some- times delay may be inevitable.  State Government should take 536 action well in advance to avoid any delay. If undue delay is caused in preparation of Select List, it provides  occasions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 27  

for  suspicion against the authorities and it is  likely  to generate frustration and heart burning among the members  of the State Civil Service which would obviously be detrimental to public administration. [560F; 561A-B] Per Mukharji, J.     I.  It cannot be said now-a-days if one is aware of  the facts and currents of Me that simply because  categorisation and  judgment of the service records of officers are in  the hands  of senior officers is a sufficient  safeguard.  There has  been  considerable erosion in the  intrinsic  sense  of fairness  and  justice in the senior officers  by  all  con- cerned.  From  the  instances of conduct of  many,  some  of senior officers and men in high position, it cannot be  said that such erosion is not only unjustified. [539A-B]     2. In order to rule out any grievance actual or fancied, some  objective basis for the categorisation should be  laid down. If such objective basis are made known, the fact  that after  categorisation, the selection of junior  officers  in preference  to  senior officers need not state  reasons  and would  not be violative of the canons of justice but  other- wise there will be room for suspicion and that too would not be wholly unjustified. [539C]     3. It is suggested to the Government and the authorities concerned that there should be some basis for the  categori- sation.  of the officers and such basis should be  objective and  not merely subjective evaluation and  furthermore  such basis should be formulated in the form of guidelines. [539D]     4. Objectivity in subjective evaluation of the worth  of the  different  officers would go a long way to  generate  a feeling that justice has been done and unless members of the administration feel that justice has been done to them,  the administration cannot become an effective weapon for  social change ushering social justice. [539D-E]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTIIN: Civil Appeal No. 4370  of 1983 etc.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 26.11. 1979  of  the Punjab  and  Haryana High Court in Civil Writ  No.  3821  of 1979. 537     R.K. Garg, R.S. Dass-in-person, B.S. Khoji, Arun Madar & T.S. Arora for the Appellants/Petitioners.     G.A.  Shah,  V.C. Mahajan, Anil Dev Singh,  L.K.  Gupta, C.V. Subba Rao, R.S. Sodhi, G.D. Gupta, A.C.  Sharma-in-per- son, Arvind Minocha, Inderjit Malhotra, M.S. Dhillon for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,  J. I have had  the  advantage  of reading the judgment in draft to be delivered by my  learned brother K.N. Singh, J. I agree with him that the appeals and the  writ petitions herein should be dismissed  without  any order as to costs. I also respectfully agree with him on the conclusions  he  has reached on  the  different  contentions urged before us in these cases. It is not necessary to refer to  the  facts and the issues which have  been  exhaustively discussed  by  my learned brother. There  is,  however,  one aspect  of the matter on which I have  certain  reservations and I would like to express my views on this aspect so  that the  Government  and the authorities concerned  may  try  to evolve a little more objective basis on that aspect.     As mentioned, the validity of the Select Lists of  1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 for promotion to the Indian  Administra-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 27  

tive  Service  was impugned in these matters on  the  ground that  the Committee had not recorded any reasons for  super- seding  the appellants and/or petitioners. The  question  of recording  of reasons had been discussed in the decision  of this Court where Select List was quashed on the ground  that the  Committee had failed to record reasons  in  superseding senior  officers.  In  view of Regulation 5(1)  to  5(5)  as prevailing at the relevant time which came up for  interpre- tation  in  Union  of India v. Mohan Lal  Capoor  &  Others, [1974] 1 SCR 797, this Court quashed the Select List on  the ground  that the Committee had failed to record  reasons  in superseding senior officers. It was held that it was  incum- bent  on the Selection Committee to have stated  reasons  in view of the said Regulation in a manner which would disclose as  to how the record of superseded officers was  judged  in relation to the record of those officers who were  preferred for  selection. This Court reiterated in the context of  the said  Regulation  that there was a mandatory  obligation  to record reasons in superseding senior officers, and therefore ’in  the  absence of such reasons the Select List  had  been vitiated.     Regulation 5 was, however, as noted by my learned broth- er,  amended  by Notification dated 3rd  January,  1977  and after the amend- 538 ment, Regulation 5(4) and 5(5) was altered. It was  provided that the Selection Committee should classify eligible  offi- cers as ’Outstanding", "Very Good", "Good" or ’Unfit" as the case might be on overall relative assessment of their  serv- ice  record. The Committee was required to categorise  offi- cers in four categories on the basis of an overall  relative assessment of service record of the officers. After categor- isation  the  Committee was required to place the  names  of those officers first on the list who might be categorised as "Outstanding"  and  thereafter those officers  as  mentioned aforesaid. Under the amended Regulation if a senior  officer is superseded, the amended Regulation 5(5) does not  require the  Committee to record reasons for such supersession.  The new  amended Regulation emphasised that the merit and  suit- ability was the governing consideration and seniority played only a subsidiary role. It was only when merits were roughly equal, seniority was the relevant determining factor.  Regu- lation 5(5) as it stood prior to Capoor’s case laid emphasis on the role of seniority. This has been done away with.     It  is stated on behalf of the respondents that  it  was felt difficult to record reasons in the prescribed manner as laid  down by this Court in the said decision and the  ques- tion was considered by a Conference of Chief Secretaries  in May,  1976 and was further considered. The Committee  recom- mended  that the system of categorisation’ of  officers  for promotion  to the higher post should be followed in case  of All India Service also and thereafter the categorisation  as noted  above was introduced in consultation with  the  State Governments.  Indeed  the  amended  provision  Regulation  5 minimised the role of seniority in the process of  selection and  importance and primacy was given to merit. This  indeed is  a laudable object and helps in having the best  for  the country. It is also true that if selection is made on  merit alone for promotion to higher service, selection of such  an officer though junior in service in preference to his senior does not really amount to supersession. If promotion is made on merit alone, the senior officer per se has no legal right to promotion and if promotion is made on merit, it cannot be said that a senior officer has been superseded. It has  been emphasised  that the categorisation is done on  the  service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 27  

record. This has also been emphasised that such  categorisa- tion  is done on the service record  including  confidential character  rolls  as maintained by senior  officers  holding high  positions. It is, therefore, according to  my  learned brother, sufficient safeguard against arbitrary  categorisa- tion  and  misuse of power. I have my reservations  on  this aspect  though I accede the position that in the absence  of any other practicable solution, this is perhaps a sufficient safeguard and perhaps 539 a practical way of facing a rather delicate task. It  cannot be said now-a-days if one is aware of the facts and currents of  life that simply because categorisation and judgment  of the  service record of officers are in the hands  of  senior officers is a sufficient safeguard. There has been consider- able erosion in the intrinsic sense of fairness and  justice in the senior officers by all concerned. From the  instances of conduct of many, some of senior officers and men in  high position,  it cannot be said that such erosion is  not  only unjustified.     In  order to rule out any grievance actual  or  fancied, some  objective basis for the categorisation in  the  manner indicated  should be laid down. If.such objective basis  are made  known, the fact that after categorisation, the  selec- tion  of junior officers ’in preference to  senior  officers need  not  state reasons and would not be violative  of  the canons  of  justice  but otherwise there will  be  room  for suspicion and that too would not be wholly unjustified.     I would therefore like to suggest to the Government  and the  authorities concerned that there should be  some  basis for the categorisation of the officers and such basis should be  objective and not merely subjective evaluation and  fur- thermore  such  basis should be formulated in  the  form  of guidelines.  Objectivity  in subjective  evaluation  of  the worth  of  the  different officers would go a  long  way  to generate  a feeling that ,justice has been done  and  unless members  of  the administration feel that justice  has  been done to them, the administration cannot become an  effective weapon for social change ushering social justice,     I,  however, hasten to add that in these cases  I  agree with  my learned brother that justice has been done  in  ac- cordance with the rules to the officers concerned and there- fore concur with him in the order as proposed.     SINGH, J: These three Civil Appeals are directed against the  judgment  of Division Bench of Punjab  &  Haryana  High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by R.S. Das,  Mrs. K.  Goyal challenging the validity of the Select  List  pre- pared  for the year 1978, 1979 for promotion of  members  of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive) to the Indian  Admin- istrative  Service, During the pendency of these appeals  17 writ petitions were filed before this Court under Article 32 of  the Constitution by Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh Nagpal  and other members of the Punjab State Civil Service  (Executive) challenging  the validity of Select List prepared  ,for  the year 1979, 1980 and 1983. As all the cases rest upon similar facts and involve common questions of law, 540 these  were heard together and we consider it  necessary  to dispose them of by common judgment.     R.S. Das, Mrs. K. Goyal and Baldev Kapoor members of the Punjab  State Civil Service (Executive) had  completed  more than  eight  years  of service and they  were  eligible  for promotion  to  the Indian Administrative Service  but  their names  were  not included in the Select List  for  the  year 1978,  while the names of officers junior to them  were  in-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 27  

cluded  in  the  Select List. R.S. Das, Mrs.  K.  Goyal  and Baldev  Kapoor filed three separate petitions before  Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging  the  validity  of Select List  of  1978.  Their grievance  was  that though they were  senior,  having  good service  record yet they were superseded by officers  junior to them in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons for  the same. A Division Bench of the High Court  dismissed all the three petitions by a common order dated November 20, 1979  rendered  in  Baldev Kapoor’s [1980] 2  SLR  309  case holding that the Select List prepared for the year 1978  did not suffer from any legal infirmity. During the pendency  of the  aforesaid petitions, another Select List  was  prepared for the year 1979 and in that List also the name of R.S. Das was not included. He filed another writ petition challenging the  validity of that Select List also almost, on  the  same grounds, that writ petition was also dismissed by the  Divi- sion Bench on November 26, 1979. R.S. Das and Mrs. K.  Goyal have  preferred appeal before this Court by  special  leave. During  the  pendency of these Appeals Pritam Singh  and  15 other  officers  of the State Civil Service  challenged  the validity of Select List prepared for the year 1979 and  1980 before this Court by means of petitions under Article 32  of the Constitution. Ajit Singh Nagpal and other officers filed a similar petitions challenging the validity of Select  List prepared for the year 1983. The challenge to the validity of the  Select List for the year 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983  are almost on similar grounds.     Before the High Court S/Shri R.S. Das, Baldev Kapoor and Smt.  K. Goel challenged the validity of the Select List  of 1978 on the ground that mandatory provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by  Promo- tion)  Regulations,  1955 (hereinafter referred  to  as  the Regulations)  were violated in making the selection  as  the service  records of eligible ’state officers including  that of  the  petitioners  had not been forwarded  to  the  Union Public Service Commission and its approval was given without considering  the recommendations made by the Selection  Com- mittee.  Amendment made in Regulation 5 deleting the  provi- sions which required reasons to be 541 recorded for the supersession of a state officer, was  arbi- trary  and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.  The petitioners further challenged the vires of the  Regulations on  the ground of their being inconsistent with  the  Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and inclusion of name of K.S. Raju was  assailed on the ground that he had earned  adverse  re- marks  and  yet  he was selected.  The  petitioners  further raised  grievance  that important material relating  to  the petitioners’  service including certificate and  letters  of recommendations  as contained in their service records  were not considered by the selection committee. The High Court by a  well considered judgment rendered in Beldev Singh’s  case (supra) dismissed all the three writ petitions on the  find- ings that the select list prepared for the year 1978 was  in accordance  with the regulations and it did not suffer  from any legal infirmity. It appears that validity of the  Select List  of 1978 was challenged by J.S. Chopra and other  offi- cers of the state civil service before the High Court  under Article 226 of the Constitution on the same ground which had already  been rejected by the Division Bench in  Baldev  Ka- poor’s  case (supra). However having regard to the  decision of  this  Court in Union of India v. Chothia (H.P)  &  Ors., etc.  etc.,  [1978] 3 SCR 652. Division Bench  referred  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 27  

matter  for consideration to a larger bench on the  question as  to  whether the Select List was vitiated  for  the  non- compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as reasons for  the supersession  of senior officers were not forwarded  to  the Commission.  The Full Bench of the High Court held that  the decision of this Court in Chothia’s case did not affect  the position  and the Division Bench decision in Baldev  Singh’s case correctly laid down the law.     In the present appeals and petitions learned counsel for the  appellants  and the petitioners as well  as  Shri  R.S. Dass,  appellant who appeared in person argued the case  and have made the following submissions:               (1) The select list of 1978-79, 1980 and  1983               are vitiated on the ground that select commit-               tee did not record any reasons in  superseding               the appellants/petitioners in excluding  their               names and including the names of junior  offi-               cers in the select list.               (2) Amendment of the Regulation 5(7) is viola-               tive  of  Articles  14 and 16  as  it  confers               unguided  power on the Selection Committee  to               supersede senior officers.               542               (3) The select list prepared for the year 1978               was vitiated for the non-compliance of Regula-               tion  6(iii) as no reasons were  forwarded  by               the  State Committee to the  Commission  along               with record of officers proposed to be  super-               seded.               (4)  Even if under the Regulations no  reasons               were  necessary to be recorded, principles  of               Natural  Justice and fair play  required  that               reason should have been recorded.               (5)  The  select list prepared  for  the  year               1978,  1979  was vitiated on  account  of  the               unauthorised  participation of Shri I.C.  Puri               as a member of the Selection Committee.               (6)  Regulations  3  and 5  of  the  Promotion               Regulation  are violative of rule 8(1) of  the               recruitment  rules inasmuch as the   Promotion               Regulations  impinge  upon the  State  Govern-               ment’s   power to  make   recommendations  for               appointment to the service.               (7) The State Government deliberately  delayed               its  comments on the select list prepared  for               1980  to the Public Service Commission with  a               view  to give undue advantage to the  officers               included in the 1979 list for promotion to the               Indian Administrative Service.     Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/petitioners we think it necessary to refer to the relevant  statutory provisions regulating promotion of  mem- bers of the State Civil Service to the Indian Administrative Service.  The Central Government in exercise of  its  powers under  section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951  flamed Indian  Administrative  Service  (Recruitment)  Rules,  1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 4 provides  for recruitment to the service, according to this rule  recruit- ment  to the Indian Administrative Service is made  by:  (i) direct  recruitment  through competitive  examination;  (ii) promotion of substantive members of the State Civil  Service (Executive) and (iii) Selection from amongst persons holding posts in substantial capacity in connection with the affairs of  the  State, who may not be members of  the  State  Civil Service.  Rule 6 provides that no appointment shall be  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 27  

to  the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter  referred to as the Service) except in accordance with the recruitment by  one of the methods specified in rule 4. Rule 7  provides for direct recruitment through competitive examination. Rule 8(1) confers power on the Central 543 Government to appoint members of the State Civil Service  by promotion to the Service on the recommendation of the  State Government and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission  in  accordance  with Regulations  which  may  be flamed by the Central Government.-In exercise of its  powers under Rule 8(1) the Central Government has flamed the Indian Administrative  Service (Appointment by  Promotion)  Regula- tions,  1955  (hereinafter referred to as  the  Regulations) laying  down procedure of selection for appointment  to  the service by promotion. Regulation 3 provides for constitution of  a  Committee  consisting of the Chairman  of  the  Union Public Service Commission or a member of the Commission  and other  members as specified in column 2 to the  schedule  to the  Regulations. Regulation 5 provides that  the  Committee shall ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year to prepare the list of such members of the State Civil  Service found  suitable for promotion to the service on  an  overall relative  assessment of the service. This list  prepared  by the  Committee is forwarded to the Commission by  the  State Government  along with the records of members of  those  se- lected  as well as of those proposed be superseded  together with  the observation of the State Government on the  recom- mendation’of  the Committee. Regulation 7 provides that  the Union  Public  Service Commission shall  consider  the  list along with the documents received from the State  Government and  on  its approval the list so approved  shall  form  the Select List of the. members of the State Civil Service.  The Select List shall ordinarily be in force until a fresh  list is prepared and approved for the subsequent year. Regulation 8  lays down that appointment of members of the State  Civil Service  shall  be  made by the Central  Government  on  the recommendations  of  the State Government in the  order,  in which the names of members of the State Civil Service appear in  the Select List. These Regulations clearly  provide  for the  selection  of officers of the State  Civil  Service  on merit  on the overall relative assessment of  their  service record.  In the process of preparing the select list if  the seniors are not found suitable for promotion and their names in  the select list is not included and, if junior  officers are  found suitable for the inclusion of their names in  the Select List, the seniors stand superseded, as the  selection is made on merit and not on the overall relative  assessment of  their  service record. In the process of  preparing  the select list if the seniors are not found suitable for promo- tion and their names in the select list is not included and, if  junior officers are found suitable for the inclusion  of their names in the Select List, the seniors stand  supersed- ed,  as the selection is made on merit and not on the  basis of seniority 544     Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners  assailed the validity of the Select List of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 on the ground that the Committee did not record any  reasons in  superseding the appellants and petitioners. Support  was drawn  from the decision of this Court in Union of India  v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797 where Select  List was  quashed on the ground that the Committee had failed  to record  reasons  in superseding senior officers.  The  Court held  that  it was incumbent on the Selection  Committee  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 27  

have  stated reasons in a manner which would disclose as  to how  the record of superseded officers stood in relation  to the  record of those officers who were preferred for  selec- tion.  The Court further held that the  Selection  Committee was under a mandatory obligation to record reasons in super- seding  senior officers, in the absence of any such  reasons the Select List was vitiated. Regulation 5(1) to 5(5)  which came  up  for interpretation before this Court  in  Capoor’s case were as under:               5(1)  The  Committee shall prepare a  list  of               such members of the State Civil/Police Service               as satisfy the condition specified in  regula-               tion 4 and as are held by the Committee to  be               suitable  for  promotion to the  service.  The               number  of members of the  State  Civil/Police               Service included in the list shall not be more               than twice the number of substantive vacancies               anticipated  in  the  course  of  the   period               twelve’ months commencing from the date of the               preparation of the list.               (2)  The Selection for inclusion in such  list               shall be based on merit and suitability in all               respects with due regard to seniority.               (3) The names of the officers included in  the               list  shall be arranged in order of  seniority               in the State Civil/Police Service.                        Provided that any junior officer  who               in  the opinion of the Committee is of  excep-               tional merit and suitability may be  assigned,               a place in the list higher than that of  offi-               cers Senior to him.               (4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and               revised every year.               545               (5) If in the process of selection, review  or               revision  it  is  proposed  to  supersede  any               member of the State Civil/ Police Service  the               Committee  shall  record its reasons  for  the               proposed supersession. On construction of the aforesaid Regulation 5(5) this  court held that it was a mandatory obligation on the Committee  to record  reasons  if  it proposed supersession  of  a  senior member  of the State Civil Service. The court  further  held that since no reasons were recorded the Committee had failed to  discharge a mandatory obligation, as a result  of  which the  list prepared by it was rendered illegal. Regulation  5 was.  however, amended by notification dated  3.6.1977,  and after the amendment Regulation 5(4) and (5) read as under:               5(4)  "The Selection Committee shall  classify               eligible  officers  as  "Outstanding",   "Very               Good" "Good" or "Unfit" as the case may be  on               an overall relative assessment of their  serv-               ice record.               5(5)  The list shall be prepared by  including               the  required  number  of  names,  first  from               amongst   officers  finally.   classified   as               "Outstanding",  then from amongst those  simi-               larly  classified  as "Very  Good"  thereafter               from  amongst  those similarly  classified  as               "Good"  and  the order of the names  inter  se               within each category shall be, in the order of               their seniority in the State Civil Service."     Under the amended Regulations the Committee is  required to  categorise officers in four categories on the  basis  of overall  assessment  of service record  of  officers.  After

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 27  

categorisation  the committee is required to place the  name of  those officers first on the list who may be  categorised as  "Outstanding"  and thereafter names  of  those  officers shall be included who are found to be "Very Good". And  only thereafter the names of those officers shall be included who may  be  categorised "GOod". If in this process  any  senior officer  is superseded the amended Regulation 5(5) does  not require  the Committee to record reasons for  the  superses- sion.  The amended Regulations have brought  in  significant change  and now the process of Selection as contemplated  by Amended  Regulations do not require the Selection  Committee to  record reasons for the supersession of officers  of  the State Civil Service. In Capoor’s case the Regulation 5(2) as it then existed laid 546 down that selection for inclusion in the list shall be based "on  merit  and suitability with due  regard  to  seniority" which  meant that merit and suitability in all respects  was the  governing  consideration and seniority was  to  play  a secondary  role, but if merit and suitability  were  roughly equal, seniority was the determining factor or if it was not reasonably possible to assess inter-se merit and suitability of  two  eligible officers and come to  a  firm  conclusion, seniority  tilted  the  scale. Regulation 5(5)  as  it  then existed  laid emphasis on the role of seniority as  it  laid down that in the process of selection, review or revision of the  select list if it was proposed to supersede any  member of  State  Civil  Service, the Committee  shall  record  its reasons  for  the proposed supersession.  The  necessity  to record reasons clearly implied that seniority of an  officer in  the State Service could not be ignored altogether.  This Court  in  Capoor’s  case held that if  senior  officer  was superseded by including the name of a Junior Officer in  the select list in preference to a senior officer, the Committee was under a mandatory legal obligation to record reasons  in a manner which would disclose how the record of each officer superseded,  stood in relation to record of others who  were to be preferred. The court further emphasised that recording of reasons was necessary as it provided a visible  safeguard against  possible injustice and arbitrariness in making  the selection.  It appears that the Committee  making  selection constituted  for  the purpose of preparing the  select  list felt difficulty in recording reasons, in the precise  manner as laid down by this Court. The question was considered by a conference  of  Chief Secretaries held in May, 1976  and  it appointed a Committee to consider the question. The  Commit- tee  noted that consequent to the judgment of this Court  in Capoor’s case, there was tendency for the Selection  Commit- tee  to  go  by seniority subject to the  rejection  of  the unfit,  even  though  Regulations prescribed  merit  as  the criteria  for  selection. The Committee  reported  that  the system  of categorisation of officers for promotion  to  the Higher Post should be followed in case of All India Services also.  After  considering the report of the  Committee,  the Conference of Chief Secretaries made recommendations to  the Union Government that necessary amendment should be made  in the  Regulations providing for grading of eligible  officers as  "Outstanding",  "Very Good", "Good" for the  purpose  of being  placed in the select list to ensure that select  list is  drawn  upon the basis of merit and  suitability  and  to obviate the necessity of giving reasons for the supersession of any officer.     In pursuance to the recommendations of the Chief  Secre- taries  Conference  the Central Government  in  consultation with  the  State Governments and the  Union  Public  Service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 27  

Commission, amended 547 Regulation  5  by its notification  No.  11089/6/76-AIS(1)-A dated 3.6.1977.     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  Commit- tee is required tO categorise the eligible officers in  four different  categories,  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 list the Committee  has to  follow  the inter-se seniority of officers  within  each category.  If there are five officers fail within the  "Out- standing"  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 "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 cannot  be helped. Where selection 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 fight to promotion against  his  juniors but where promotion is made  on  merit alone, senior officer has 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  serv- ice,  no officer has legal fight to be selected  for  promo- tion,  except that he has only right to be considered  along with  others.  In Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of  Punjab  & 0rs.,,[1982]  1  SCR 904. This court held that a  member  of State Civil Service 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.     Learned  counsel. urged that reasons if recorded  ensure objectivity and impartiality. In :he absence of reasons  the Committee  may act in arbitrary manner to  supersede  senior officers which would be 548 violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We  find no  merit in the submission. Article 16 ensures equality  in matters relating to appointment and promotion to an  officer or  post under the State. It enjoins State not  to  practice descrimination in matters relating to appointment and promo- tion.  A  member  of the State Civil  Service  eligible  for selection  for promotion to the I.A.S. has right to be  con- sidered  alongwith  others for selection for  promotion.  If eligible  officers are considered on merit, in an  objective manner  no Govt. servant has any legal right to  insist  for promotion nor any such right is protected by the Article  14 or  16 of the Constitution. Article 16 does not insist  that reasons should be recorded for the non-selection of a member of a State Service.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 27  

   Learned  counsel urged that in the absence of  statutory provision, principles of natural justice require the  selec- tion  committee  to record reasons for the  supersession  of officers to enable them to make representation against their supersession.     We find no merit in the submission. Principles of  natu- ral 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. In the absence of  a statutory provision an administrative authority is under  no legal  obligation to record reasons in support of its  deci- sion. There is no scope for applying principles’ of  natural justice in matters relating to selection of suitable members of  State  Service  for promotion to a  higher  service.  In Mohanlal  Capoor’s  case similar submission  was  made  that principles  of  natural  justice  require  communication  of reasons  to the officer proposed to be superseded to  enable him  to  make representation. Both the  learned  Judges  who constituted  the Bench repelled the contention.  Mathew,  J. held  that  no notice was required to be given to  a  senior officer  if he was proposed to be superseded in favour of  a junior  on the ground of his greater merit and  suitability, ’the learned judge further observed that it was not  expedi- ent  to extend the horizon of natural justice. Beg, J.  also rejected the submission that minimal requirement of just and fair  treatment in such a situation would be to  inform  the officer  to  be  superseded, the reasons  recorded  for  his proposed supersession to enable him to make  representation. On  such a ground expansion of scope of natural justice  was not justified.     The principle of audi alteram partem is a basic  concept of principles of natural justice. No one should be condemned without  hearing  is he essence of justice.  Courts  of  law apply this principle to ensure fair 549 play and justice in judicial and quasi-judicial matters.  Of late these principles have been extended even to administra- tive  actions  also. However, the application  of  the  audi alteram  partem rule is not applicable to all  eventualities or  to  cure all ills. Its application is  excluded  in  the interest of administrative efficiency and expedition.  Some- times  legislation  itself excludes the application  of  the rule. It is difficult to conceive exhaustively all eventual- ities and circumstances for application or exclusion of  the rule. In A.K. Kraipak & Ors., etc. etc., v. Union of India & Ors.,  [1970] 1 SCR 457 a Constitution Bench of  this  Court held  these rules operate only in areas not covered  by  any law  validly made. In other words they do not  supplant  the law  of  the land but supplement it. They are  not  embodied rules  and  their  aim is to secure justice  or  to  prevent miscarriage  of justice. If that is their purpose, there  is no reason why they should not be made applicable to adminis- trative proceedings also, especially when it is not easy  to draw the line that demarcates, administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial  ones, and an unjust decision in an  adminis- trative  enquiry may have a more far reaching effect than  a decision  in a quasi-judicial enquiry. The  Bench,  however, further  observed that the concept of natural  justice  have under  gone  a great deal of change in  recent  years.  What particular  rule of natural justice should apply to a  given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and  circum- stances of that case, the flame-work of the law under  which the enquiry is held and the Constitution of the Tribunal  or the body of persons appointed for that purpose.     In  Union of India v. Col, J.N. Sinha & Anr.,  [1971]  1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 27  

SCR 791 this Court held that if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the appli- cation of any or all the principles of natural justice  then the  court cannot ignore the mandate of the  legislature  or the  statutory authority and read into the concerned  provi- sions  the principles of natural justice. Whether the  exer- cise of a power conferred should be made in accordance  with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the  express  words of the provision conferring  power,  the nature  of the power conferred, the purpose for which it  is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power.     In  Chairman,  Board of Mining Examination  &  Anr.,  v. Ramjee,  [1977] 2 SCR 904 Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for  the Court observed:               "Natural Justice is no unruly horse, no  lurk-               ing  land  mine, nor a judicial  cure-all.  If               fairness is shown by the decision               550               maker to the man proceeded against, the  form,               features  and the fundamentals of such  essen-               tial processual propriety being conditioned by               the facts and circumstances of such situation,               no breach of natural justice can be complained               of.   Unnatural expansion of natural  justice,               without reference to the administrative reali-               ties and other factors of a given case, can be               exasperating.  We can neither be  finical  nor               fanatical  but should be flexible yet firm  in               this jurisdiction."     It is well established that rules of natural justice are not  rigid  rules, they are flexible and  their  application depends  upon the setting and the back-ground  of  statutory provision, nature of the right which may be effected and the consequences which may entail, its application depends  upon the  facts and circumstances of each case. These  principles do  not apply to all cases and situations.  Applications  of these uncodified rules are often excluded by express  provi- sion or by implication. In Union of India & Anr., v.  Tulsi- ram  Patel  etc., [1985] 3 SCC 398 a Constitution  Bench  of this Court considered the scope and extent of  applicability of principles of natural justice to administrative  actions. Madon,  J summarised the position of law on this  point  and observed as follows:               "So  far as the audi alteram partern  rule  is               concerned, both in England and in India, it is               well established that where a right to a prior               notice  and an opportunity to be heard  before               an  order is passed would obstruct the  taking               of prompt action such a right can be excluded.               This  right  can also be  excluded  where  the               nature  of the action to be taken, its  object               and  purpose  and the scheme of  the  relevant               statutory  provisions warrant  its  exclusion;               nor  can the audi alteram partem rule  be  in-               voked if importing it would have the effect of               paralysing the administrative process or where               the  need  for promptitude or the  urgency  of               taking  action so demands, as pointed  out  in               Meneka Gandhi’s [1978] 2 SCR 621 cases." In the instant cases statutory Regulations do not  expressly or  by implication apply the rule of audi alteram partem  in making the selection. On the other hand the scheme contained under  the  regulations  exclude the  applicability  of  the aforesaid rule by implication. Select list is prepared  each year  which ordinarily continues to be effective for a  year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 27  

or  till  the fresh select list is prepared. If  during  the process of 551 selection  a senior officer is proposed to be superseded  by virtue  of  not being included in the select  list,  and  if opportunity  is afforded to him to make  representation  and only thereafter the list is finalised, the process would  be cumbersome  and time consuming. In this process it  will  be difficult  for  the committee to prepare  and  finalise  the select list within a reasonable period of time and the  very purpose  of  preparing the select list  would  be  defeated. Scheme of the Regulations therefore clearly warrants  exclu- sion  of principle of audi alteram partem. No  vested  legal right of a member of the State Civil Service who after being considered, is not included in the select list, is adversely affected,  Non-inclusion  in the select list does  not  take away  any right of a member of the State Civil Service  that may  have  accrued to him as a Govt. servant,  therefore  no opportunity  is necessary to be afforded to him  for  making representation against the proposed supersession.     The  next submission was that the select  list  prepared for  1978 was vitiated for the non-compliance of  Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as the State Govt. failed to forward to  the Commission  reasons recorded by the Committee for  superses- sion of seniors as required by that Regulation. It was urged that  even after deletion of Regulation 5(5) which  required Committee  to record reasons for supersession of an  officer by  the Notification dated June 3, 1977,  Regulation  6(iii) remained  unamended,  therefore, the Committee was  under  a mandatory  duty to record reasons, and the State  Govt.  was required  to forward the same to the Commission.  Since  the Committee  failed to comply with the  mandatory  obligation, the  select list prepared for the year 1978 stood  vitiated. To support this submission reliance was placed on the  deci- sion of this Court in Chothia’s case. In that case interpre- tation  of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forests Service  (Ini- tial Recruitment) Regulation of 1966 came up for  considera- tion. Regulation 5 laid down method for preparation of  list of suitable officers of State Forest Service adjudged by the Selection  Board for appointment to posts in the senior  and junior scales of Indian Forest Service. Regulation 5(2)  was as under:               "5(2):  The list prepared in  accordance  with               sub-regulation  (1) shall then be referred  to               the  Commission  for advice,  by  the  Central               Govt. alongwith--               (a)  the  records  of all  officers  of  State               Forest Service included in the list;               (b) the records of all other eligible officers               of the State               552               Forest  Service who are not adjudged  suitable               for  inclusion in the list, together with  the               reasons  as  recorded by the Board  for  their               non-inclusion in the list."     Construing the aforesaid regulation this Court held that both  the clauses (a) and (b) of Regulation 5 must  be  com- plied  with before the recommendations are sent tO the  Com- mission. Clause (b) of the Regulation 5 laid down that where eligible officers of the State Forest Service were not found suitable, reasons must be given by the Board for their  non- inclusion in the select list. The Court held that Regulation 5(b) which provided for recording reasons was mandatory  and it must be complied with. But in view of the amendments made in  Regulations under consideration providing for  selection

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 27  

on the basis of categorisation of members of the State Civil Service into different categories on the assessment of their service records, principles laid down in Chothia’s case  are not  applicable.  After the amendment of  Regulation  5  the Committee  was under no legal obligation to  record  reasons for supersession of a senior officer and for that reason  it did  not  record  any reasons, therefore,  the  question  of forwarding  any reasons by the State Government to the  Com- mission did not arise. Regulation 6(iii) which required  the State  Government  to forward to the Commission  along  with reasons as recorded by the Committee for the proposed super- session  of any member of the State Civil Service  was  con- sistent  with the unamended Regulation 5(5)  which  required the Committee to record reasons for supersession of a member of the State Civil Service. By Notification No.  11039/3/78- AIS(1)  dated June 2, 1979 Clause (iii) of Regulation 6  was deleted  as a result of which the State Govt. ceased to  the under  any obligation to forward to the  Commission  reasons recorded  by  the Committee for  supersession  of  officers. Having regard to the legislative history and the purpose and the object which was sought to be achieved by the amendments there could be no mandatory legal obligation on the  Commit- tee to record reasons. Regulation 6(iii) merely required the State Govt. to forward reasons if recorded for  supersession of  the officers to the Commission, but if no  reasons  were recorded  the State Govt. was under no legal  obligation  to forward  the same to the Commission and  its  non-compliance did not vitiate the select list. Since the entire system  of selection  has been changed on account of amendment  in  the regulations,  the principles laid down in Chothia’s case  do not  apply  to the instant cases. The  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court in P.C. Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SLR 1  and  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  J.S.  Chopra’s [1980] 2 ILR Punj. 477 case have taken similar views. 553     The  Appellants/Petitioners  entertain  an  apprehension that  in the absence of reasons the selection would be  made in  an arbitrary manner over-looking the claim of  a  senior officer eligible for promotion to the Indian  Administrative Service. In this regard it was urged that selection on merit confers  wide discretion on the authority  making  selection and in the absence of reasons there would be no  objectivity and  the  members of the State Civil Service  would  receive discriminatory  treatment by the committee. The scheme  con- tained in promotion regulations and the criteria  prescribed therein  for  preparing the select list do not  justify  any such  apprehension.  The principal object of  the  promotion system as contained in the regulations is to secure the best possible incumbents for promotion to the Indian  Administra- tive  Service which is the back-bone of  the  administrative machinery of the country. The efficiency of the  administra- tion  in the Union as well as in the State  largely  depends upon the efficiency of the members of the Indian Administra- tive Service. Efficient public service is in public interest and the public interest is best secured if reasonable oppor- tunity for promotion exist for all qualified members of  the State  Civil Service and only those who are found  efficient and  suitable in all respects are promoted. This  object  is sought  to  be achieved by the  Regulations  in  prescribing merit as the sole test for promotion. In order to judge  the merit the regulations provide for categorisation of eligible members  of  the State Civil Service on the basis  of  their service  records  which  are scrutinised  by  the  Committee consisting  of high ranking officers of the State Govt.  and the Central Govt. The service records of all eligible  offi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 27  

cers  whose names are included in the proposed  select  list and the records of even those who are not selected is  again scrutinised by the State Govt. and the Union Public  Service Commission  and only thereafter final shape is given to  the selection  list. There are, therefore, adequate  checks  and safeguards at different stages by different authorities. But if any dispute arise with regard to the arbitrary  exclusion of  a  senior  member of the State Service  the  matter  can always  be investigated by perusing his service records  and comparing  the same with the service record of officers  who may  have been preferred and that would  certainly  disclose the  reasons for the supersession of the senior officer.  It is  true that where merit is the sole basis  for  promotion, the power of selection becomes wide and liable to be  abused with less difficulty, But that does not justify  presumption regarding  arbitrary  exercise of power. The  machinery  de- signed for preparation of select list under the  regulations for  promotion to All India Service, ensures  objective  and impartial  selection. The Selection Commitee is  constituted by high ranking responsible officers presided over by Chair- man or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission. 554 There  is no reason to hold that they would not act in  fair and  impartial manner in making selection.  The  recommenda- tions  of  the selection committee are  scrutinised  by  the State Govt. and if it finds any discrimination in the selec- tion it has power to refer the matter to the Commission with its recommendations. The Commission is under a legal obliga- tion  to  consider the views expressed by  the  State  Govt. along  with  the records of officers, before  approving  the select list. The selection committee and the Commission both include  persons having requisite knowledge, experience  and expertise  to  assess  the service records  and  ability  to adjudge the suitability of officers. In this view we find no good  reasons  to hold that in the absence  of  reasons  the selection  would be made arbitrarily. Where power is  vested in high authority there is a presumption that the same would be exercised in a reasonable manner and if the selection  is made  on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner  the courts have ample power to strike down the same and that  is an  adequate  safeguard against the  arbitrary  exercise  of power.     It  was  urged that the selection merely  based  on  the appraisal of service record is arbitrary and it is bound  to cause injustice as entries in the character roll of  members of the State Service depend upon the whims of the  recording officer. It is true that the service records contain remarks which  sometimes  may not be fully justified, but  for  that reason the scheme contained in the rules and regulations for promotion  cannot be characterised unreasonable.  There  are various methods of selection viz. by competitive examination written  test-cum-vivavoice,  or by  assessment  of  service records. For the purpose of recruitment to the Indian Admin- istrative  Service  from amongst the officers of  the  State Civil Service, latter method namely, selection on the  basis of scrutiny of service records has been accepted. This is  a well recognised system for making selection. In Parvez Qadir v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 432 while considering similar submission the Court observed:               "The past performance of an officer being  one               of the criteria for making selection, the only               way to adjudge their suitability is by perusal               of  confidential  records.  It  is  true  that               confidential  records do not sometimes give  a               true  picture due to the vagaries of  the  re-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 27  

             cording  officer.  The human  fallibility  and               want  of objectivity in the  superior  officer               are  factors which cannot be eliminated  alto-               gether.  For  that  matter one  can  ask  what               method  is perfect. For this  reason,  certain               safeguards have been provided in order               555               to  make  them as objective  as  possible.  If               there is an adverse entry against any  officer               that  officer is given an opportunity  to  ex-               plain.  After the. explanation is  given,  the               superior  officer as well as the  Govt.  ulti-               mately  decide  whether that  remarks  by  the               recording officer was justified or not, and if               it is not justified the Govt. can always order               its deletion. Sometimes vagary may enter  into               the  service confidentials, and if  cannot  be               postulated that all superior officers who have               been  empowered to finalise such entries  will               suffer  from any of those traits  because  the               actions of the officer concerned may not  have               any immediate impact upon him and consequently               his sense of objectivity will not be dimmed or               strained.  In  our  view,  often  enough,  the               entries in confidential records are themselves               an insignia of the capacity and capability  of               the  maker as a superior officer as well as  a               commentary  on  the  quality  of  the  officer               against whom that confidential remark is being               noted. But those who are charged with the duty               to over see that these entries are fair,  just               and  objective  quite often do  intervene  and               rectify any entry on representation being made               against  it.  at  the proper  time.  In  these               circumstances, we do not think that the method               of  selection  based on  past  performance  as               disclosed  by the confidential records is  not               the proper method for adjudging suitability of               the officer concerned."     An ancillary argument was raised to demonstrate discrim- ination.  It was urged that the regulations do not lay  down any  guidelines for categorisation of officers of the  State Service into various categories with the result the  Commit- tee  even if acting bona fide may apply different  standards at different times. The argument was further developed  that the  Committee members change and, therefore, the same  Com- mittee  or  different Committee is likely to apply  its  own standard in judging the suitability of officers in different manner in different years which would result into  discrimi- nation.  This submission is rounded on the  assumption  that the  Committee is free to categorise officers at  its  sweet will but that assumption is misconceived. Under Regulation 5 the  Committee  has to categorise officers on the  basis  of their  service  records into four  categories  as  discussed earlier.  The  categorisation  is objectively  made  on  the material  available in the service records of the  officers. There  is hardly any scope for applying different  standards or criteria at different times as the service records namely the  character roll entries would indicate the  category  of the officers as adjudged by the authority ’recording  annual confidential remarks. There is no dis- 556 pure that in Punjab, under the State Govt’s instruction  the authority competent to record annual remarks in the  charac- ter  roll  of members of the State Civil Service,  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 27  

directed  to  indicate  the category of  the  officer,  e.g. whether the officer is "outstanding". "very good" or "good". The annual confidential remarks as available in the  charac- ter  roll of officers of the State Civil  Service  therefore indicate  the  category to which a  particular  officer  may belong.  We  were informed by Counsel for  the  Union  Govt. during  the  hearing of the cases  that  under  instructions issued by the Union Govt. all the State Govts. are following similar  pattern in categorising members of the State  Civil Service  in  the annual remarks made in  their  confidential records.  This has brought uniformity in the character  roll entries. Since category of members of State Civil Service is available  in  their service record, the  Committee  has  no discretion  to  disregard  the same. The  Committee  has  to categorise the members of the State Service on the basis  of entries available in their character roll and thereafter  to arrange their names in the proposed list in accordance  with the principles laid down in Regulation 5. There is no  scope for  applying  different standard or test in  preparing  the list, or to practice discrimination. We, therefore, find  no merit in the submission that Regulation 3 and 5 are discrim- inatory and they violate Article 14 and 16 of the  Constitu- tion.     Learned counsel urged that recommendations of the Selec- tion  Committee which prepared the select list for the  year 1979  was  illegal on account of the participation  of  Shri I.C.  Puff,  as he was not entitled to be a  member  of  the Selection  Committee, his participation in the  deliberation of the committee was unauthorised. Regulation 3(1)  provides that  a  committee shall be constituted, consisting  of  the Chairman  of the Commission or any other member of the  Com- mission  representing it and other members as  specified  in corresponding  column 3 of the schedule. The proviso to  the Regulation lays down that except the Chairman or the  member of  the Commission, no other person who is not a  member  of the  service  shall be member of the Committee.  It  further provides that the Central Govt. may after consultation  with the  State Government amend the schedule. Other  members  of the  Committee as specified in Column 3 of the  schedule  to the  regulation as applicable to the State of Punjab  speci- fied  the (1) Chief Secretary to the Govt.; (2)  Development Commissioner  (3) Senior most Financial Commissioner, (4)  A nominee  of the Govt. of India, not below the rank of  Joint Secretary as members of the Committee.      Senior  posts in the Indian Administrative Service  not below the rank of Commissioner are determined in  accordance with the schedule 557 to  the Indian Administrative Service. (Fixation  of  Cadres Strength)  Regulations  1954. The cadre regulation  did  not provide  for  any post of Development Commissioner  for  the State  of Punjab as a result of which there was no  separate post  of  Development Commissioner. Instead,  the  Financial Commissioner was made Incharge of the Development Department and  he was designated as Financial  Commissioner  (Develop- ment).  Shri I.C. Puri who was posted as the Financial  Com- missioner  (Development)  was the  Incharge  of  Development Department at the relevant time and as such he was appointed a  member of the Selection Committee and admittedly he  par- ticipated  in the deliberations of the  Selection  Committee which held its deliberation on November 30, 1979 for prepar- ing  the  select  list of 1979. In the  affidavit  filed  on behalf of the State of Punjab it has been asserted that  the Development Department was under the charge of the Financial Commissioner  who was designated as  Financial  Commissioner

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 27  

(Development)  and Shri Pun who was holding the rank of  the Commissioner  was the Secretary Incharge of the  Development Department.     On  behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners it was  strenu- ously urged that Shri Puri was not the Secretary Incharge of the  Development  Department on 30.11.79.  Instead  Hardayal Singh was Incharge of the Development Department as  Special Secretary  in the Department of Rural Development,  Panchay- ats, Agriculture and Forests. In the counter affidavit filed on  behalf of the State Govt. it is asserted  that  Hardayal Singh  was merely posted Special Secretary to the  Govt.  He was neither holding the rank of Commissioner nor he was  the Secretary  Incharge of the Development Department.  However, Hardayal  Singh  was given the rank of Secretary  simply  to protect his special pay in the time scale of selection grade in the Indian Administrative Service. He was not Incharge of the  Department as Secretary, instead he was  working  under over  all  control of Financial  Commissioner  (Development) namely,  Shri  I.C. Puff. This finds support from  the  note recorded  by Hardayal Singh on 5.12.79 requesting the  Chief Secretary  for  allocation  of work  between  the  Financial Commissioner (Development) and Special Secretary. The  rele- vant  note is available on record. It is thus  evident  that Hardayal  Singh  was working under the over all  control  of Shri I.C. Puri who was the Financial Commissioner  (Develop- ment) and Secretary Incharge of Development Department.  The material placed on record leaves no room for any doubt  that Shri I.C. Puri designated as Financial Commissioner  (Devel- opment) was also discharging the duties and functions of the Development  Commissioner.  He was, therefore,  holding  the dual 558 charge  as no separate post of Development Commissioner  had been  sanctioned by the Govt. These facts clearly show  that for all purposes Shri Pun was working as Development Commis- sioner.  As  Financial  Commissioner  (Development)  he  was exercising same powers and discharging same functions  which could be performed by a Development Commissioner,  therefore he was competent to participate in the deliberations of  the selection  committee.  While considering  this  question  we cannot be oblivious of the fact that at no stage any  objec- tion was raised against functioning of Shri Puri as a member of  the  Selection  Committee or his  participation  in  the deliberations. There is further no allegations of mala  fide or  bias against Shri Puff. There is evidence on  record  to show that recommendations of the Selection Committee consti- tuted under Regulation 3 were unanimous, which were  scruti- nised  by the State Govt. and the Union Public Service  Com- missions before the same were approved.     Learned  Counsel placed strong reliance on the  decision of  this Court in A.K. Kraipak’s case. In that case  initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service was challenged.  In pursuance of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 a special Selection Board was  constituted for Selecting officers for appointment to the Indian  Forest Service, from officers of the forest department of the State of  Jammu and Kashmir. The Acting Chief Conservator of  For- ests  of the State was a member of the  Selection  Committee which made recommendations for the recruitment, he  partici- pated  in the selection board’s deliberations  in  preparing the  list  of selected candidates in  order  of  preference, although  he  himself was a candidate  for  selection."  The Court  held that the participation of the Acting Chief  Con- servator vitiated the recommendations made by the  Selection Board  as there was conflict between the, Acting Chief  Con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 27  

servator’s personal interest and his duty and further he was a Judge in his own cause. The Court further held that taking into consideration probability and ordinary course of  human conduct, there was reasonable ground for believing that  the Acting Chief Conservator was likely to have been biased.  In these  circumstances the Court held that the selection  made by  the  Board could ’not be considered to  have  been  made fairly  and justly as it was influenced by a member who  was biased. Principles laid down in Kraipak’s case do not effect the validity of the recommendations made for the preparation of select list of 1979 as Shri I.C. Puff was neither  biased against  any  of the appellants/petitioners, nor  there  was conflict  between his personal interest and duty. Shri  Puri had no interest in the inclusion or exclusion of a member of the State Civil Service nor he had any personal interest  in preparing the 559 list. There is no allegation of bias or malice against  Shri Puff,  his  participation in the meeting  of  the  Selection Committee did not render the select list of 1979 illegal.     Shri  B.S. Khoji, learned counsel for Pritam  Singh  and other petitioners in the writ petitions urged that Promotion Regulations 3, 5 and 7 are ultra vires rule 8 and the entire selection made in pursuance of the impugned Regulations  are illegal.  Rule 8(1) provides that the Central Govt.  may  on the recommendations of the State Government and in consulta- tion with the Commission and in accordance with such Regula- tions as the Central Govt. may frame after consultation with the  State  Governments and the Commission, recruit  to  the Indian  Administrative  Service persons  by  promotion  from amongst  the  substantive members of  State  Civil  Service. According to the learned counsel, Rule 8(1) confers power on the Central Govt. to make recruitment to the Indian Adminis- trative Service by promotion from amongst the members of the State  Civil  Service on the recommendations  of  the  State Govt., in consultation with the Commission. However, Regula- tions 3, 5 and 7 rob the State Govt. of its power of  making recommendation  for recruitment to the service. The plea  of ultra  vires can be sustained if Regulations 3, 5 and 7  are inconsistent  with Rule 8(1). In our opinion Rule 8(1)  con- fers  power on the Central Govt. to make recruitment to  the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from amongst  the members of the State Civil Service on the recommendations of the  State  Govt. in consultation with  the  Commission.  It further  contemplates that the recommendations of the  State Govt. and consultation with the Commission which is  consti- tutional obligation as envisaged by Art. 320 of the  Consti- tution,  would be in accordance with regulations  which  the Central  Govt. may frame after consultation with  the  State Govt. and Commission. Rule 8(1), therefore, contemplates the State  Govt’s.  recommendation and the consultation  of  the Commission in accordance with the regulations framed by  the Central Govt. The Central Govt. has framed promotion regula- tions which provide method and manner of selection.  Regula- tion  3 provides for constitution of selection committee  to prepare list of suitable officers in accordance with Regula- tion 5. The list so prepared is forwarded by the State Govt. to  the Union Public Service Commission along  with  records and  the observations of the State Govt. in accordance  with Regulation  6. Thereafter the Commission considers the  list under  Regulation 7. The Commission may make any  change  in the list received from the State Govt. and thereafter it may approve finally with such modification as in its opinion  it may be just and proper. The list as finally approved by  the Commission forms the select list of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 27  

560 members  of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains  in force until its review and revision. Regulation 9 lays  down that the appointment of members of State Civil Service shall be  made by the Central Govt. on the recommendations of  the State Govt. in the order in which their names appear in  the select list. In our opinion these regulations do not in  any manner  impinge upon the powers of the State Govt.  to  make recommendations to the Central Govt. as contemplated by Rule 8. There is, therefore, no merit in the petitioners’ submis- sion.     On behalf of Pritam Singh, Petitioner, it was urged that the State Government acted mala fide in deliberately  delay- ing  its comments to the Commission on the list of 1980  and thereby  it manipulated appointment of Tejinder Singh,  M.P. Mitra and Gurdev Singh. In’ order to appreciate this submis- sion  it  is necessary to refer to the facts which  are  not disputed. The names of Tejinder Singh, M.P. Mitra and  Guru- dev Singh were included in the select list approved for  the year  1979,  and  as such they were  entitled  to  promotion during the period of currency of that list. On December  31, 1980 Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3  met to prepare fresh select list for the year 1980. The list  so prepared  did not include the names of  aforesaid  officers. But  before the 1980 list could be finally approved  by  the Commission,  the  aforesaid officers were  promoted  and.ap- pointed  to I.A.S. In the background of these facts  it  was urged that the State Government deliberately did not forward its  comments.to the Union Public Service Commission on  the proposed Select List of 1980 as a result of which, delay was caused  in  the approval of the 1980 list.  In  the  counter affidavit  filed on behalf of the State  Government  allega- tions regarding mala fide have been denied. No material  has been placed before us to substantiate the plea of mala fide. Merely, because the State Government forwarded its recommen- dations  with delay is not sufficient to  justify  inference that  the  delay was purposive with a view  to  grant  undue favour to the officers named above. Regulations  contemplate preparation of select list each year. The process of  Selec- tion, preparation and its final approval involves participa- tion  of  three authorities namely the  Selection  Committee constituted under Regulation 3, the State Government and the Union  Public  Service Commission. The records  of  all  the eligible  officers are scrutinized by the  Committee,  State Government  and  the Commission before the  Select  List  is finally approved and if there is any difference between  the authorities,  consultation between the State Govt.  and  the Commission  is  bound to take place. These steps  which  are necessary  for the approval of select list are time  consum- ing.  In actual practice sometimes delay may be  inevitable. As the select list is to be prepared each year the State 561 Government  should take action well in advance to avoid  any delay.  If  undue delay is caused in preparation  of  select list, it provides occasion for suspicion against the author- ities  and  it is likely to generate frustration  and  heart burning  among the members of the State Civil Service  which would obviously be detrimental to public administration. The select  list  of 1979 which included the names  of  Tejinder Singh, M.P. Mitra and Gurdev Singh continued to be effective under  Regulation  7(4)  till another select  list  for  the subsequent  year was finally approved. There is  no  dispute that  the aforesaid officers were promoted and appointed  to I.A.S.  before the approval of the select list for the  year 1980. Therefore no exception can be taken to the validity of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 27  

their appointment. We are, further of the opinion that delay made  by the State Government in forwarding its comments  to the Union Public Service Commission with regard to the  1980 list  did not cause any prejudice to Pritam Singh and  other petitioners  as none of them was selected for  inclusion  in the 1980 list.     We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals and the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed but there will  be no order as to costs. A.P.J.                              Appeals  and   Petitions dismissed. 563