http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GURDAYAL SINGH FIJI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/10/1981

BENCH: SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) BENCH: SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 2015            1982 SCR  (1) 904  1981 SCC  (4) 419        1981 SCALE  (1)1553  CITATOR INFO :  D          1987 SC 593  (18)

ACT:      Constitution of  lndia  1950,  Article  32  and  Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955-Member of  State Civil Service Cadre Adverse remarks in confidential  roll-Certificate  of  integrity  not  granted- I.A.S. Select List-Claim for inclusion-Whether maintainable.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner,  a member of the State Provincial Civil Service, in  his writ  petition to this Court contended that he was one of the senior most persons in the service, with a consistently good record, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certificate of integrity had not been given to him,  and that  the adverse remarks made against him were mala fide  and unjustified  and the  refusal to  grant him a certificate of  integrity and  to include  his name  in  the l.A.S. Select List was wrongful and illegal.      Dismissing the writ petition, ^      HELD :1.  The I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the Select  List is  an  independent  body,  The  petitioner cannot claim  to be  included in the Select List as a matter of right.  The Select  List is  prepared  by  the  Selection Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of the suitability of the officer concerned and the recommendations made by  the Selection  Committee have to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission. [906 C-D]      In the  instant case  the Selection  Committee has  not considered the  petitioner to  be suitable to be included in the Select  List and the Union Public Service Commission has agreed   with    the   recommendation   of   the   Selection Committee.The claim  of the  petitioner for inclusion in the Select List must, therefore, fail. [906 E]      2. The  petitioner is  now SS  years of age and the age bar in  the matter  of inclusion in the Select List deprives the petitioner  from being included in the Select List. [906 F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      ORlGlNAL JURlSDlCTlON: Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1980.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)      Petitioner in person      Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No. 1. 905      P.A. Francis,  N. Netlar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent A No. 15.      Jitendra Sharma and P. Caur for Respondents Nos. 25-31, 33-38, 41-43, 46-48 and 51-55.      Respondent No. 58 in person.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of the Punjab Provincial Civil Service, has presented this writ petition in person and he has argued his own case in person.      The main  grievance of  the  Petitioner  in  this  writ petition appears to be against the non-inclusion of his name in the l.A.S. Select List.      It is  the case of the petitioner that he is one of the senior-most persons  in the service with a consistently good record of  service on  the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by  two officers,  certificate of  integrity has not been given  to him.  The Petitioner submits that the adverse remarks made  against him were mala fide and unjustified and the refusal  to grant him a certificate of integrity and not to include  his name  in the  I.A.S. Select List is wrongful and illegal.      As this  writ petition  may be  disposed of  on a short point, it  does not  become necessary  for us  to set out at length the various facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has  taken us through the records and the various documents filed  in support  of his  case made  in the  writ petition.      In view  of the  grievance made by the Petitioner as to non-inclusion of  his name in the Select List, this Court by an order(l)  passed  on  9.3.1979  directed  the  I.  A.  S. Selection Committee  to hold  a special  meeting to consider the question  of inclusion  of the name of the Petitioner in the Select List. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, I.A.S. Selection  Committee held  a special  meeting on  the 21.7.1979 and  the Selection  Committee found the Petitioner to be unsuitable for inclusion in the Select List. It may be noted that the I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the Select List  is an  independent body  and recommendations of the 906 I.A.S. Selection Committee further require to be approved by the Union  Public Service  Commission. The decision taken by the I  A.S. Selection  Committee  at  the  meeting  held  on 21.7.1979 pursuant  to the  order of  this Court refusing to include the  Petitioner in  the Select  List was approved by the Union  Public Service  Commission which  agreed with the recommendation. An  affidavit has  also been  filed by  Shri D.C.  Mishra,   Director,  Department   of   Personnel   and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The averments  made in  this affidavit  go to establish that the case  of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List was properly considered by the Selection Committee on merits As we  have earlier  noticed, the  Selection Committee is an independent body  and there is nothing on record to pursuade us to  hold that the decision of the Selection Committee was not properly  arrived at  on consideration  of the merits of the case  and was,  in any  way,  otherwise  motivated.  The Petitioner cannot claim to be included in the Select List as

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

a matter  of right.  The Select  List  is  prepared  by  the Selection Committee  on consideration  of the  merits on the basis  of   suitability  of   the  officer   concerned   and recommendations made  by the  Selection Committee have to be approved by the Union Public service Commission.      As the  Selection  Committee  has  not  considered  the Petitioner to  be suitable to be included in Select List and the Union  Public Service  Commission has  agreed  with  the recommendation of  the Selection Committee, the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the select List must fail.      There is  another aspect  of the  matter which  goes to establish that  the case  of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select  List cannot now be considered. The Petitioner is now SS  years of  age and  the age  bar  in  the  matter  of inclusion in  the Select  List debars  the  Petitioner  from being included  in the  Select  List.  In  the  result  this petition fails  and is,  therefore, dismissed.  There  will, however, be no order as to costs. N.V.K.                            Petition dismissed. 907