http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  689 of 2007

PETITIONER: Union of India & Anr

RESPONDENT: S.K. Goel & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of SLP (C) NO. 2410 OF  2007)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted. The Union of India through Secretary, Department  of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is the first  appellant in this appeal.  The second appellant is the  Department of Personnel and Training through its  Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Pension, New Delhi.   The first respondent is the contesting respondent.   Respondent Nos. 2-5 and the first respondent joined the  Indian Customs and Central Excise Service as a  Grade A  Officer on probation and was promoted as Assistant  Collector of Central Excise after selection by the UPSC.   Respondent No.1 and other respondents were confirmed  in Group A service.  In the order, the proforma  respondents were placed higher in order of seniority.   Thereupon respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy  Collector of Central Excise on an ad hoc basis in the year  1983 and the said appointment was regularized as  Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, vide  order dated 16.7.1985.  The Government of India,  Ministry of Finance issued an Office Order No. 187 of  1997 for the ad hoc promotion of respondent No.1 and  proforma respondents to officiate in the grade of  Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.   The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short  "the DPC) was constituted for considering officers for  promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and  Central Excise in April, 1997 and February, 1998.   Respondent No.1 represented against the seniority  assigned to him and he claimed that his ACR’s for the  year 1994-1995 had not been properly graded or  considered by the DPC and the lower grading given to  him by the Reviewing Officer on one ACR was not proper  and DPC ought to have considered the higher grading  given by the reporting Officer.   The Office Order No. 11 of 1999 was issued on  12.1.1999 by the Government of India, Ministry of  Finance whereby promotions of these officers were made  on the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central  Excise.  Office Memorandum No. F. No.Q-32012/10/97- AO-II Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of  Revenue was issued whereby the representation of  respondent No.1 was rejected for the following reasons  stated as under: "i) The recommendations of the 5th Central Pay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Commission that for promotion to the Central  Services, as in the case of IAS Officers, the inter-se  seniority as fixed by the UPSC at initial entry into the  service, should remain unaffected, is under  consideration of the Govt. and a decision in this  respect is likely to take time as these involve  significant modifications in DPC guidelines. As the  recommendations of the Pay Commission are yet to be  accepted by the Govt., the existing  instructions/guidelines of the Govt. pertaining to DPC  are required to be followed.

ii) The provisions of para 6.2.1(e) of the DPC guidelines  circulated by DOP&T vide their OM dated 10th April,  1989 were followed by the DPC which met in UPSC  and considered the case of Sh. Goel for promotion to  the grade of Commissioner. As such, it may not be  appropriate to say that the DPC took into  consideration the lower grading given to Shri Goel by  the reviewing officer and not the higher grading given  by the reporting officer.

iii) Although, the reviewing officer had slightly  downgraded the overall grading on Shri Goel in the  ACR for the year 1994-95 and the ACR also could not  be sent to CVC for counter signature, it cannot be  concluded that it had adverse impact on the findings  of the DPC in the matter of his promotion to the grade  of Commissioner. The DPC made its own assessment  on the basis of the entries in the ACRs and overall  grading of the reviewing /reporting officers was of no  consequence.

iv) It is not for an individual officer to claim that his  case is outstanding or otherwise as has been claimed  by Shri Goel in his representation. It is for the DPC to  make assessment on the officer after going through his  service records. The mere grant of presidential Award  cannot entitle an Officer to claim that he should be  awarded outstanding grading by the DPC."

Respondent No.1 filed OA No. 141 of 2000 before  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,  New Delhi with the following prayers:- "i) To direct that, in the grade of Commissioner, the  seniority of the applicant over respondents 3 to 6 be  maintained, and, therefore, to declare the impugned  Office order No.11 of 1999 illegal to the extent it places  respondents 2 to 5 above the applicant, and to give  correct placement of the applicant at Sl. No.1 of the  list contained in the said order,

ii) In the alternative, to set/quash the promotions of  respondents 3 to 6 insofar as they have been promoted  and given seniority above the applicant,

iii) To quash and set aside the undated Office  Memorandum (Annexure-A2) issued by the respondent  No.2,

iv) To grant costs of this application to the applicant  herein, and

v) To pass such other order or orders as may be  deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

The appellants filed their counter affidavits  rebutting the claim of respondent No.1.  It was submitted  that the DPC had followed duly approved norms and  procedure as prescribed vide para 6.2.1 of M.M. (DOP &  T) No. 22011/556-Estt.(D) dated 10.4.1989. The Tribunal dismissed the said petition by  following the Full Bench decision in the case of Manik  Chand vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 2002(3) ATJ 268 to hold that it  is not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading  which are not adverse or not below the bench mark  prescribed for promotion to a particular post in respect of  a selection post.  In other words, if the applicant was  meeting the bench mark, the question of communication  of the entry, which in no event can be termed as adverse,  would have arisen. The Tribunal also considered and distinguished the  facts and ratio of the case of U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat  Chandra Jain AIR 1996 SC 1616 by observing that it  was not shown that the confidential reports had been  down graded and once they were not down graded, the  question of communicating such grading did not arise.   Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 5404 of  2003 before the High Court of Delhi.  The High Court  allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the  Tribunal and ACRs for the years 1992-1993, 1993-1994  and 1994-1995 and remanded the matter to the  appellant for fresh consideration of the seniority of  respondent No.1 in terms of the observations made by  the High Court.  The High Court in the concluding  portion of its order observed as under: "Similar is the view expressed in Full Bench Judgment  of this Court in J.S.Garg vs. Union of India reported in  100 (2002) DLT 177. From the catena of cases cited  above it emerges that when an entry reflects an  adverse element it may not amount to adverse entry in  the strict sense of the promotion since both may be  positive grading but as observed in U.P. Jal Nigam’s  case, the authority recording the confidential report in  such situation must record reasons for such down  grading in the personal file of the officer concerned  and inform him of the change in the form of an advice.  The rate must be given appropriate guidance and  opportunity as and when his weakness is noticed. If  taking that entry into consideration seniority is not  granted to the rate, it has an element of adverseness  as far as his service profile is concerned. Therefore, it  is well settled that although the Court cannot  moderate the appraisal and grading given by an officer  while exercising the power of judicial review but as the  entries for the period indicated above had an element  of adverse reflection and for that purpose his seniority  has been downgraded, the ACRs ought to have been  communicated to the petitioner, which has not been  done in the instant case, therefore, reliance placed by  the Tribunal on the decision of Punjab and Haryana  High Court in Union of India &Ors vs. M.S. Preet and  Anr. In Civil Writ Petition No. 13024/CAT/2002  rendered on 22.11.2002 would not come into play. We  set aside and quash the order of the Tribunal and the  ACRs for the year 1992-1993. 1993-1994 and 1994- 1995 and remand the case back to the respondent to  reconsider afresh within a period of three months the  seniority of the petitioner in terms of the above  observations qua the respondents."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Aggrieved by the said order, appellant Nos. 1 & 2  preferred the above appeal by way of special leave  petition before this Court. We have heard Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional  Solicitor General and Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior  counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rajiv Dutta,  learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional solicitor General  took us through the impugned order passed by the High  Court and other relevant records and submitted that the  High Court erred in its failure/omission to take into  consideration the Government instructions for regulating  recording of Annual Confidential Reports which provide  for only communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs.   Since respondent No.1 had received no adverse remarks  and has rather been graded at the level of the prescribed  bench mark of ’above average’, therefore, there was  neither any onus nor requirement upon the appellant to  have communicated the ACR entry to respondent No.1.   Learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted  that the DPC followed the prescribed norms as also  applied its discretion vested in it to determine the  comparative merit of the eligible officers and thereafter  made recommendations in order of merit.  There was  thus no justification for interference in the order passed  by the appellants as upheld by the Central  Administrative Tribunal.      Learned Additional Solicitor General has also  invited our attention to the judgment passed by the  Tribunal as well as by the High Court.  He also cited the  following rulings: 1.      Union of India & Anr. vs. Major Bahadur  Singh , (2006) 1 SCC 368 2.      R.L. Butail vs. Union of India & Ors. 1970(2)  SCC 876 3.      Anil Katiyar(Mrs.) vs. Union of India & Ors.,  (1997) 1 SCC 280 Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing  for the contesting respondent No.1 submitted that  respondent No.1 along with respondent Nos. 2-5 joined  the Indian Custom and Central Excise Services on  probation in Group A after selection by the UPSC and  that at the initial entry stage, respondent No.1 was fixed  over and above respondent Nos. 2-5 vide notification in  the Customs and Central Excise establishment S.No. 148  dated 19th December, 1975.  In the said seniority list Shri  Y.G. Parande was shown at S.No.2, Shri Hari Om Tiwari,  respondent No.3 was shown at S.No.3, Shri C.  Sathpathy, respondent No.4 was shown at S.No.12 and  Shri Iype Mathew, respondent No.5 was shown at  S.No.14 and respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy  Collector of Central Excise on ad hoc basis vide Order  No.149/83 dated 12.8.1983 and was appointed on  regular basis as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central  Excise vide notification dated 16.7.1985.  Thereupon, the  Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government  of India issued a civil list of Indian Revenue Services and  in that list also respondent No.1 was shown as senior to  respondent Nos.2-5 and that in the year 1991,  respondent No.1 was decorated with President’s award  for specially distinguished services after considering his  achievements for the past 15 years.   Mr. Rajiv Dutta further submitted that right from  the day of initial entry stage to the date of ad hoc

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

promotion to the post of Commissioner, respondent No.1  was shown senior to respondent Nos. 2-5.  He further  submitted that respondent No.1 has been an upright,  hardworking and honest officer and has been rated as  outstanding from 1989-1990 to 1996-1997 by the  reporting officers.  However, subsequently respondent  No.1 came to know that for the years 1992-1993, 1993- 1994 and 1994-1995, the reviewing officer had down  graded his ACR by one step i.e. from ’outstanding’ to  ’very good’.  It is significant that for the years 1995-1996  and 1996-1997 the reporting officer rated respondent  No.1 as ’outstanding’ and on his ACR being forwarded to  the Central Vigilance Commissioner also respondent No.1  was rated as ’outstanding’. According to Mr. Rajiv Dutta, the reviewing officer  did not give any reason for downgrading respondent No.1  from ’outstanding’ to ’very good’.  Moreover, there was no  material before him for downgrading the rank of  respondent No.1.  The Reviewing did not indicate any  material on the basis of which the said reviewing officer  purported to reduce the grading of respondent No.1 from  ’outstanding’ to ’very good’.  It was also contended that  respondent No.1 was never communicated this  downgrading by the reviewing officer in the form of advice  or otherwise and respondent No.1 was never given an  opportunity to show that the downgrading was totally  unjustified and uncalled for. It was further submitted that in February, 1998,  DPC was held for promotion to the post of Commissioner  of Customs and Central Excise.  The said DPC  considered the case of respondent No. 1 along with the  case of respondent Nos. 2-5.  No interviews were held by  the DPC.  For considering the merits and demerits of the  candidates, the DPC took into consideration only the  ACRs for the years 1988-90 to 1996-1997.  In the case of  respondent No.1, the defective and incomplete ACRs for  the years 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 were  considered by the DPC and the panel was prepared for  promotion to the post of Commissioner, Customs and  Central Excise by the DPC and respondent No.1 was  placed below respondent Nos. 2-5 thereby disturbing his  seniority.  The DPC apart from taking the defective and  incomplete ACRs of respondent No.1 for the years 1992- 1993 to 1994-1995 did not take into considering the  recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission to the effect  that the inter se seniority of the candidates should be  maintained.  Mr. Rajiv Dutta also relied on the decision  in State Bank of India vs. Kashinath Kher (1996) 8  SCC 762 at 771 para 15 wherein this Court pointed out  that the object of writing the confidential report is two  fold i.e. (i)     to give an opportunity to the officer to remove  inefficiency and to inculcate discipline; (ii)    It seeks to serve improvement of quality and  excellence and efficiency of public service.  The officers  while writing confidential reports should show objectivity,  impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice  whatever with the highest sense of responsibility to  inculcate in the officer devotion to duty, honesty and  integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual  officers. Mr. Rajiv Dutta also cited the judgment of this  Court in State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Mishra AIR  1997 SC 3671 wherein this Court held that the object of  writing the confidential reports and making entries in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public  servant to improve excellence.  Article 51 A(j) of the  Constitution of India enjoins upon every citizen the  primary duty to constantly endeavour of prove excellence,  individually and collectively, as a member of the group.   Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to  improve excellence and thereby efficiency of  administration would be augmented.  The officer  entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has  a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential  reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while  giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts  on an overall assessment of the performance of the  subordinate officer.  It should be founded upon the facts  or circumstances.  Though sometimes, it may not be part  of record, but the conduct, reputation and character  acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within  his knowledge.  Before forming an opinion to be adverse,  the reporting officers writing confidential reports should  share the information which is not a part of the record  with the officer concerned have the information  confronted by the officer and then make it part of the  record.  This amounts to an opportunity given to the  erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the  judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or  conduct/corrupt proclivity.  If despite giving such an  opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct  his conduct or improve himself, the same may be  recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof  supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an  opportunity to know the remarks made against him.  If  he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it  corrected by appropriate representation to the higher  authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for  redressal.  Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and  efficiency get improved in the performance of public  duties and standards of excellence in services constantly  rises to higher levels and it becomes successful tool to  manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty,  efficiency and devotion. It was also submitted that in the case of U.P. Jal  Nigam & Ors. vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors.,  (supra),  this Court reiterated these very principles in the  matter of recording the ACRs and that of bringing the  downgrading/adverse remarks to the notice of the officer  with the sole aim of giving opportunity to the officer to  improve his conduct.  In the case of respondent No.1, he  was downgraded from ’outstanding’ to ’very good’  and no  reason for the same was given and that there was no  material on the basis of which the reviewing officer could  downgrade respondent No.1.  No reasons for such  downgrading were given nor was respondent No.1  appraised of the downgrading, thereby rendering the  ACRs defective which could not be considered by the  DPC. Arguing further, learned senior counsel, submitted  that if the downgraded entry is considered to be positive  still it may adversely affect the rating as it happened in  the case of respondent No.1 and that the DPC considered  only ACRs from 1989-1990 to 1996-1997 in respect of  promotions to the post of Commissioner to Central  Excise.  Apart from ACRs, the DPC had no other material  with them.   It was submitted further that the DPC had also  fallen into grave error in ignoring the recommendations of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

the 5th Pay Commission followed by the Government of  India to the effect that in the matter of promotion inter se  seniority fixed at the time of initial enty stage should not  be disturbed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case,  learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned  judgment of the High Court which is clearly based upon  the law as laid down by this Court in a number of cases  is unassailable and, therefore, the civil appeal has no  merits. We have carefully considered the rival submissions  with reference to the records placed and material placed  before us and the judgment of the Tribunal and that of  the High Court.  We heard extensive arguments from  both sides.  The only question that arises for  consideration in the instant case is as to whether the  High Court has erred in its failure/omission to take into  consideration the government instructions for regulating  recording of ACR which provide for only communication  of adverse remarks in the ACRs. In the instant case, respondent No.1 had received  no adverse remarks and had rather been graded at the  level of the prescribed bench mark of ’above average’,  therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional  Solicitor General, there was neither any onus nor  requirement upon the appellant to have communicated  the ACR entry to respondent No.1. At the time of hearing, the original record was  placed before us.  We have carefully perused the same.   The DPC, in our view, followed the prescribed norms as  also applied its discretion vested in it to determine the  comparative merit of the eligible officers and thereafter  made recommendations in order of merit.  There was  thus no occasion or justification for interference in the  order passed by the appellants, as upheld by the  Tribunal. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent  No.1 placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court  in U.P. Jal Nigam(supra).    In our opinion, the said  decision is entirely distinguishable on facts and  circumstances from the case on hand and is wrongly  been relied upon by the High Court.  In the U.P. Jal  Nigam’s case, the officer concerned Shri P.C. Jain had  been downgraded at certain point of time. Before the  High Court, it had been alleged that downgrading of entry  could not be termed as adverse and that the same should  be communicated.  The U.P. Jal Nigam Service Rules  provided for communication of adverse entries.  In this  case, downgrading had been done by comparison and  there appears to be no reason recorded for such  downgrading.  However, in the instant case, the  downgrading still meets the bench mark and therefore,  merely because certain persons have been assessed by  the DPC to be better than the respondent, did not imply  that he should have been communicated his grading. In our opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal does  not call for any interference inasmuch as it followed the  well settled dictum of service jurisprudence that there  will ordinarily be no interference by the courts of law in  the proceedings and recommendations of the DPC unless  such DPC meetings are held illegally or in gross violation  of the rules or there is mis-grading of confidential  reports.  In the present case, the DPC had made an  overall assessment of all the relevant confidential reports  of the eligible officers who were being considered.  The  DPC considered the remarks of the reviewing officers.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

There was clear application of mind.  Respondent No.1  did fulfill the bench mark.  Hence, the impugned  direction of the High Court ought not to have been issued  as the same will have the impact of causing utter  confusion and chaos in the cadre of the Indian Revenue  Service, Customs and Central Excise Service.   It was also argued by the learned senior counsel  appearing for respondent No.1 that the entries for the  period had an element of adverse reflection and for that  purpose the seniority of respondent No.1 was  downgraded and, therefore, the ACR ought to have been  communicated to respondent No.1.  In our opinion, the  observations of the High Court are wholly unjustified  inasmuch as the post of Commissioner of Customs and  Central Excise is a post required to be filled up on  selection made strictly on the basis of merit.  No judicial  review of DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily  conducted in accordance with the standing government  instructions and Rules is warranted.  The norms and  procedure for DPC are prescribed in O.M. dated  10.4.1989.  It is thus seen that the decision taken by the  appellants has been as per the instructions issued on the  subject that only adverse entries and remarks are to be  communicated and there is no provision to communicate  the downgrading of ACR to a government employee.  The  decision of the Central Government is in strict  accordance with the prevailing rules and government  instructions.  In the absence of any violation, the  impugned order of the High Court while undertaking a  judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of  India, is wholly unjustified.  Since the matter of seniority  has been well settled and this Court in a plethora of  cases has held that the seniority/promotion granted on  the strength of DPC selection should not be unsettled  after a lapse of time.  Therefore, in the facts and  circumstances of the present case, where there is no  adverse remarks whatsoever against respondent No.1,  the High Court ought not to have interfered with and  passed the impugned direction.  This apart, as per the  instructions contained in para 6.21 of DOPT Order No.  22011/5/86/Estt. D dated 19.4.1981, as amended, the  DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall  grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but to  make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in  the CRs.  The DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its  method and procedure for objective assessment of  suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by  it.  Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, in our  opinion, is liable to be set aside. Case law on the subject 1.      Anil Katiyar(Mrs.) vs. Union of India & Ors.,  (1997) 1 SCC 280 :  The appellant and respondent No.4  in this case had joined the Central Agency Section in the  Ministry of Law of the Government of India as Assistant  Government Advocates.  The appellant was junior to  respondent No.4.  While considering them for promotion  to the post of Deputy Government Advocate, which is a  selection post, the DPC graded both of them as "very  good" and on the ground of seniority selected respondent  No.4 for the said post.  The appellant unsuccessfully  challenged the selection of respondent No.4 before the  CAT on the ground that the DPC was not justified in  grading her merely as "very good" as in the ACRs for two  of the relevant three years the departmental authorities  had graded her as "outstanding" and for the third year as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

"very good" while they had graded respondent No.4 as  "very good" in all the three ACRs.  The CAT while refusing  relief to the appellant on the ground of want of  jurisdiction to scrutinize the recommendations of the  DPC, this Court perused the confidential procedure  followed by the DPCs in the Union Public Service  Commission for giving overall grading, including that of  "outstanding" to an officer.  Thereafter, refusing to  interfere with the selection of respondent No.4 by the  DPC but setting aside the said observation of the CAT,  this Court held as under: "Having regard to the confidential procedure which is  followed by the Union Public Service Commission, it is  not possible to hold that the decision of the DPC in  grading the appellant as "very good" instead of  "outstanding" was arbitrary.  No ground is, therefore,  made out for interference with the selection of  respondent 4 by the DPC on the basis of which he has  been appointed as Deputy Government Advocate.  But,  at the same time, it has to be held that the Tribunal  was in error in going into the question whether the  appellant had been rightly graded as "outstanding" in  the ACRs for the years 1990-1991 and 1991-1992.   The observations of the Tribunal that out of the two  "outstanding" gradings given to the appellant one  "outstanding" grading does not flow from various  parameters given and the reports entered therein,  cannot, therefore, be upheld and are accordingly set  aside."    

2.      Union Public Service Commission vs. L.P.  Tiwari & Ors. 2006(12) SCALE 278:  This case relates to  grading in selection list for promotion to Indian Forest  Service.  The jurisdiction of Courts to interfere with  evaluation made by the expert committee was under  consideration.  The respondents were serving as State  Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant  Conservator of Forests.  Both the officers became eligible  to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service.  On an  overall service records, Selection Committee assessed  respondent as being "very good" and included his name  at S.No.10 in the Select List of 2001.  Respondents 4-8  were assessed as "outstanding" by the Selection  Committee and were included at S.Nos. 3-7 in the  selection list.  Respondent No.1 claimed that he ought to  have been assessed as "outstanding" and should have  been assigned seniority in the Indian Forest Service  Cadre over respondents 4-8.  The Tribunal came to the  conclusion that patent material irregularities had been  committed by the Selection Committee for the year 2001.   This Court allowed the appeal filed by the UPSC and held  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.  Speaking for the  Bench, Altamas Kabir,J. in paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 of  the judgment held as under:     "12. 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. v.  K. Rajaiah and Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 15,   wherein the aforesaid Rules for the purpose of

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

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. 13. 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.  14. 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 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."         For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the DPC  enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and  procedure for objective assessment of suitability and  merit of the candidate being considered by it.  Hence, the  interference by the High Court is not called for.           Accordingly, the Civil Appeal stands allowed and the  judgment of the High Court is set aside.   However, there  shall be no order as to costs.