http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5155 of 2006

PETITIONER: UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

RESPONDENT: L.P. TIWARI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (c) No.12249/2006)

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

       Leave granted.         Shri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No.1 in the first matter and  Shri DP. Dwivedi, respondent No.1 in the second matter, were  serving as State Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant   Conservator of Forests in the office of the Divisional Forest  Officer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.  Both the said officers  became eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service  under the provisions of the I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion)  Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulations’)   Regulation  3 of the said Regulations provides for the  appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the  Chairman  of the Union Public Service Commission or where  the Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the  Union Public Service Commission along with the following  members as far as the  State of Madhya Pradesh is  concerned:- (i)     Chief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P; (ii)    Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests; (iii)   Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Govt. of M.P.; (iv)    Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of  M.P. and; (v)     A nominee of the Govt. of India not below the rank  of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.      

All meetings of the Selection Committee  are presided  over by the Chairman/Member of the Union Public Service  Commission.   In keeping with the Regulations, the Selection Committee  classifies eligible State Forest Service Officers coming within  the zone of consideration as "outstanding", "very good", "good"  or "unfit" on an overall assessment of their service records.   Thereafter, as per Regulation 5 (4), the Selection Committee  prepares a list by including  the required number of names   first from amongst officers classified  as "outstanding" and  then from amongst  those classified as "very good", and  thereafter from amongst those classified as  "good".  The  names within each category are set in the order of their  respective inter se seniority in the said  Forest Service. The Annual Confidential Reports of the eligible officers  form the basis on which such officers are categorized in the  manner indicated above.  However, while making an overall  assessment, the Selection Committee  also takes into account   orders and remarks regarding appreciation for meritorious

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

work done by the concerned officer.  Similarly, orders  awarding  penalties  or any adverse remarks  communicated to  the officer and which have not been expunged are also  taken  into consideration while grading the officers. In the instant case, a meeting of the Selection Committee  was held on 12th and 13th December, 2002 to prepare the   yearwise  Select List for the years 2001 and 2002 for  promotion  to the I.F.S. cadre of  Madhya Pradesh in  accordance with the aforesaid Regulations.  The size of the  Select List for the year 2001 was 11 and 9 for the year 2002.  As the zone of consideration in each year  is taken as three  times the number of vacancies available, 33 names were  considered  for the 11 vacancies for the year 2001 and 27  names were  considered  for  filling up the 9 vacancies for the  year 2002.   On  an overall assessment of his service records,  the Selection Committee assessed Shri L.P. Tiwari as being  "very good".  On such assessment, his name was included at  serial no.10 in the Select List of 2001 for promotion to the  Indian Forest Service.  The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were  assessed as "outstanding" by the Selection Committee and  were included at serial nos. 3 to 7 in the Select List. Aggrieved by his placing at serial no.10 in the Select List,  Shri L.P. Tiwari filed O.A.No.118/2004 before the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as  ’the Tribunal’) claiming that he ought to have been assessed as  "outstanding" and should have been assigned seniority in the  Indian Forest Service Cadre over respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Although, Shri D.P. Dwivedi’s name was also considered   and placed at serial no.8 in the Select List for the year 2001  and he was also  graded as  "very good" by the Selection  Committee, his  name did not find place  in Select List  for the  year 2001 on account of the  statutory limit on the size of the  Select List.  He was also not considered for promotion to the   Select List of 2002 as he had crossed the age of 54 years on 1st  January, 2002 which was the date  fixed for reckoning the  eligibility of officers for inclusion in the  Select List of 2002.   Shri Dwivedi also filed  Original Application No.16/2003 before  the Tribunal challenging the selection/appointment of the  State Forest Officers  to the I.F.S. cadre for the year 2002. The two aforesaid applications as also the application  filed by one M. Ramachandran (O.A.No.69/2003) were  taken  up for hearing together since the grievances were more or less    common, although the prayer  in Shri L.P. Tiwari’s application  was different from the others.  While the others prayed for a de  novo    selection by a  Review  Departmental Promotion  Committee, Shri L.P. Tiwari prayed for a  declaration that he  ought  to have been assessed as "outstanding" in the  year  2001 and that he should be assigned seniority in the I.F.S.  Cadre over the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and others.  The  learned Tribunal adopted a rather unusual procedure in  dealing with the applications after going through the Annual  Confidential Reports of the applicants in detail.   On a  comparison of the merits and demerits of the parties as  reflected in their Annual Confidential Reports, the Tribunal  came to a finding that patent material irregularities  had been  committed by the Selection Committee for the year 2001 for  which the entire selection process for the year 2001 was liable  to be reviewed.  The respondents were accordingly directed to  convene a meeting of the Selection Committee to review the  proceedings of the Selection Committee for the year 2001 in  the light  of the observations made in the  Tribunal’s order and  thereafter  to grant all consequential benefits within a period  of three months from the date of communication of the order.   The Union Public Service Commission  filed two separate  Writ Petitions  in regard to the applications filed by Shri L.P.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Tiwari  and Shri D.P. Dwivedi being W.P.No.3718/05 (S) and  W.P. No.3719/05 (S).  Both the Writ Petitions were taken up  for hearing on 9th March, 2006 and ultimately by its judgment  dated 14th March, 2006, the High Court upheld the findings of  the Tribunal and dismissed both the Writ Applications.  The  High Court directed the respondents to hold a Review  Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the  Rules within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a  certified copy of the order and submission of the same to the  competent authority by Shri L.P. Tiwari and Shri D.P. Dwivedi.   This appeal has been preferred by the Union Public Service  Commission against the aforesaid judgment and order of the  High Court affirming the order and directions given by the  Tribunal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that both  the Tribunal as also the High Court had misdirected  themselves in directing a Review Departmental Promotion  Committee to be held since the entire procedure leading to the  preparation of the Select List both for the years 2001 and  2002 was strictly in accordance with the Regulations and  there had been no deviation therefrom.  It was urged that  the  Selection Committee had acted  strictly in accordance with the  parameters laid down by the Regulations.  In fact, Mr. Rao,  learned senior counsel, took us through each step of the  procedure which is adopted by the Selection Committee while  grading the eligible  candidates  in the different  categories.   Having regard to the provisions in the Regulations that the  Annual Confidential Reports of the past five years would be  taken into consideration for preparing the Select List, the  Tribunal appears to have committed an error in relying on  Annual Confidential Reports of even previous years and   thereby widening the scope of selection.   Such an erroneous   approach has led the Tribunal to wrongly conclude that the  Selection Committee had erred in grading  the eligible officers. It is now more or less well-settled that the evaluation  made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered   with by the Courts which do not have the necessary      expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such  purpose.  Such view was reiterated  as late as in 2005  in the  case of  U.P.S.C.  vs. K. Rajaiah & Ors., reported in (2005) 10  SCC 15, wherein the aforesaid  Rules for the  purpose of  promotion to the I.P.S. Cadre was under consideration.  Apart  from the above, at no stage of the proceedings, either before  the Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court,  has   any allegation of mala fides  been raised against the Selection  Committee and the only grievance is that the Selection   Committee erred while making assessment  of the comparative  merits of the respective candidates.   While concluding his  submissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that   the direction  given by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review  Departmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since  the Regulations provided for  selection to be made not by  a  Departmental  Promotion Committee but by  a Selection  Committee constituted  as  per the Regulations. Although, on behalf of the respondents it has been urged  that there was no bar which precluded the Tribunal from  looking into the original ACRs of the respective candidates,  what we are required to consider is whether it was at all  prudent on the part of the Tribunal to have adopted such a  procedure which would amount to questioning the subjective  satisfaction of the Selection Committee in preparing the Select  List.  From the submissions made and the materials on record,  we are satisfied that the methodology which has been evolved  and included in the Regulations for grading the eligible officers

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

have been religiously followed by the Selection Committee  which  did not call for  any interference by the Tribunal.  The  High Court has merely followed the decision of the Tribunal  without independently applying its mind to the facts involved. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the  judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal as also  that of the Tribunal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.