http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1979

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1622            1979 SCC  (2) 368  CITATOR INFO :  R          1981 SC 594  (6)  F          1984 SC 531  (5,8)  RF         1987 SC 948  (9)  RF         1988 SC1069  (5)  RF         1991 SC1216  (6)  RF         1992 SC1020  (23)

ACT:      Indian   Administrative    Service   (Appointment    by Promotion)  Regulation   1955  -Requirement   of   Integrity Certificate-Resolutions 1.1  and 1.2 whether ultra vires the Regulations.      Adverse report in confidential roll-Not communicated to the person  concerned-Whether can  be  acted  upon  to  deny promotional opportunities.

HEADNOTE:      The  Indian   Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by Promotion) Regulations,  1955 formulates  the procedure  for selecting persons from the State Civil Service Cadre for the purpose of  bringing them  on the  select list of the Indian Administrative Service.  Regulation 5  which deals  with the preparation of the list of suitable officers provides by cl. (2) that  the selection  for inclusion in such list shall be based on  merit and  suitability in  all respects  with  due regard to  seniority, while  cl. (5)  provides that if it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Selection  Committee shall  record its  reasons for  the proposed supersession.      The  "Government   of  India’s   Decisions"  under  the regulations have  been published  by the  Govt. in  the  All India Services Manual, Part II.      Resolution 1.1  requires the  Chief  Secretary  to  the State Government who is the sponsoring authority to record a certificate in  respect of every eligible officer whose case is placed  before the  Selection Committee,  that the  State Government certifies  the  integrity  of  the  officer  with reference to the entries in his annual confidential reports.      Resolution 1.2  provides that  the Selection  Committee should specifically  record in  its proceedings  that it  is satisfied from  the remarks  in the  confidential reports of the officers selected by it for inclusion in the Select List that there was nothing against their integrity.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    The appellant  and respondents  8 to 15 were members of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), the respondents being junior  to the appellant. In 1966-67, an adverse entry was recorded  in the confidential report of the appellant by the District  and Sessions  Judge. No  decision was taken by the Government as to whether the adverse entry was justified and whether  the contentions  raised by the appellant in his representation to the same were well founded.      After  1966-67,   the  appellant   worked  in   various capacities, earned good reports and was allowed to cross the first and  second efficiency bars. However, respondents 8 to 15 were promoted to the selection grade of the service prior to the  appellant. His  representation in  this  regard  was rejected by the Government.      Respondents 2  to 7  who constituted  the committee for selecting persons  from the  Punjab Civil  Service cadre for the purpose  of bringing  them on  the select  list  of  the Indian Administrative  Service, selected  respondent no.  9. The 519 Appellent’s name  was not  put on  the  select  list,  since respondent no. 2, the Chief Secretary to the State Govt. had refused to  give an  ’integrity  certificate’  to  him.  His representation  against   the  non-inclusion   having   been rejected, he approached the High Court.      The High Court rejected the appellant’s contention that resolution 1.1  was ultra  vires of regulations 4 and 5; but quashed the order of the State Government granting seniority to two  junior officers  over the appellant in the selection grade.      In appeal by the appellant, the High Court held that it is nowhere  laid down  that  integrity  certificate  is  the requirement  for   eligibility  for   promotion.   Integrity certificate is  the requirement  of resolution  1.1 which is only an executive instruction. No criteria is mentioned, nor guidelines provided  as to  how the integrity certificate is to be  issued. The  executive instruction,  therefore,  went beyond the  scope of the statutory regulation, the provision requiring the  production of  the integrity  certificate was unguided  and  was  likely  to  lead  to  arbitrariness  and unreasonableness and that therefore resolution 1.1 was ultra vires of  regulations 4  and 5.  The High Court held further that the  records of the Selection Committee reveal that the decision not  to include  the appellant’s name in the select list was  not based solely on the ground of non-availability of the  integrity certificate  and that  the  Committee  had given another  cogent reason,  that the  appellant  was  not suitable otherwise also      Allowing the further appeal to this Court, ^      HELD: 1. (i) The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court was in error in striking down, resolution 1.1 as being ultra vires of  regulation 5.  Both resolutions  1.1 and  1.2  are within the regulations and are valid. [527 C]      (ii) Under  cl.  (2)  of  Regulation  5  selection  for inclusion in  the select  list has  to be based on merit and suitability in  all respects  with due  regard to seniority. Neither  the  1954  Rules  nor  the  1951  Act  furnish  any guidelines  for   assessing  merit   and  suitability.   The Government would  therefore, have the power to prescribe the criteria for  determining whether  the requirements of merit and suitability  are fulfilled  by any particular candidate, The Executive  decision which is contained in resolution 1.1 and 1.2  effectuates the  purpose of that prescription. [526 C, F, G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

    (iii) The  Government in  the exercise of its executive authority cannot  supersede a  statutory rule  or regulation but it  can certainly  effectuate the  purpose of  a rule or regulation by  supplementing it.  These resolutions  of  the Government of India do not transgress the requirement of the Regulations but  are in  furtherance thereof. It, therefore, cannot be stated that the Chief Secretary had been conferred with an  unguided or  unfettered discretion  to  assess  the integrity of  the  officers  by  granting  or  refusing  the integrity certificate at his sweet will. [526 H, 527 B]      (iv) Every  Executive Authority  is  charged  with  the obligation of  organising  its  services  so  as  to  ensure maximum efficiency. The idea of maximum efficiency cannot be achieved unless  persons who are selected for public offices possess integrity in as high a measure as ability. Integrity is, therefore, the sine qua non of merit and suitability. No person can be considered as possessing merit and suitability if he lacks in character and integrity. [526 E] 520      2. One  of the reasons which evidently weighed with the Selection Committee  in not  putting the appellant’s name on the select  list was that the Chief Secretary had not issued the integrity  certificate in  his favour. The non-inclusion of appellant’s  name in the select list and the non-issuance of  the  integrity  certificate  are  thus  closely  linked, whether or  not there  was another reason also for which the Selection Committee  kept him out from the select list. [527 G-H]      3. An  adverse report  in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon  to deny  promotional opportunities  unless it is communicated to  the person  concerned so  that  he  has  an opportunity to  improve his  work and  conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not  an empty  formality, its object, partially, being to enable  the   supeurior   authorities   to   decide   on   a consideration of  the  explanation  offered  by  the  person concerned, whether  the adverse report is justified. [528 H- 529 B]      In the  instant case  for  one  reson  or  another  not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant though the adverse  report was  communicated to  him the Government has not  been able  to consider  his explanation  and decide whether the  report was  justified. In such circumstances it is difficult  to support  the non-issuance  of the integrity certificate to  him. The  chain of  reaction began  with the advese report  and the infirmity in the link of causation is that  no  one  has  yet  decided  whether  that  report  was justified. [529 C]      4. In  the absence  of a  proper pleading  it cannot be speculated that  the appellant  was not  found suitable  for reasons other  than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him. [529 D]      5. The  High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was  not brought on the select list because he was ’not found  suitable otherwise’.  Regulation  5(7)  provides that the  Committee  shall  record  its  reasons  if  it  is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service. That an  officer was  "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not  a reason  in support  of the  decision to supersede him. In  the absence  of any reason, this Court cannot agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for  not bringing the appellant on the select list. [529 E, G, 530 A]           [Directed  that  the  case  of  the  appellant  be considered afresh  by the Selection Committee indicating the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

broad frame-work  within which  the Committee should act and the preliminary steps the Government should take in order to facilitate the Committee’s task.]      Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1971] 1 SCR 797; referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 503 of 1978.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated  )76   of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court   at Chandigarh in  L.P.A. No. 484/74. S. K. Mehta, J. S. Chawla, P. N.  Puri and  P. Balakrishnan for the Appellant B;shamber Lal (for State) and Hardev Singh for the RR-1-4 and 6. 521      P. N. Lekhi and Girish Chandra for Respondent No. 17.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-The  appellant, Gurdial  Singh Fijji, was selected for the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) in 1953 and was appointed as an Executive Magistrate on June 8, 1954.  Respondents 8  to 15  are also members of the same Service, namely,  the P.C.S.,  but they  were  selected  and appointed to  that Service after the appellant. They are all governed, in  the matter  of conditions of their service, by the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch) Rules 1930, as amended from  time to  time by  the competent authority. The appellant was  confirmed in  the cadre  on May 8, 1958 while respondents  8   to  15  were  confirmed  on  diverse  dates thereafter.  In   the  gradation   list  circulated  by  the Government from time to time, respondents 8 to 15 were shown as junior to the appellant.      In the  year 1966, as a result of the reorganisation of the  erst-while   State  of   Punjab,  the   appellant   and respondents 8  to 16  were allocated to the State of Punjab. In 1966-67  an adverse  entry was  made in  the confidential record of  the appellant while he was working under one Shri Sewa Singh,  District and  Sessions  Judge,  Amritsar.  That entry was communicated to the appellant whereupon, he made a representation against  it  but  that  has  still  not  been disposed of, for one reason or another. The State Government forwarded  the   representation  to  Shri  Sewa  Singh,  who declined to  express his  views upon  it unless asked by the High Court  to do  so. Nothing  further has been done in the matter and  no decision  has yet  been taken on the question whether the  adverse entry  was justified  and  whether  the various  contentions   raised  by   the  appellant   in  his representation are well-founded.      The appellant  worked in various capacities after 1966- 67, earning  good reports  all along.  He was  permitted  to cross the  first efficiency  bar under an order of the State Government dated June 14, 1966 and the second efficiency bar on July 20, 1971.      By an  order dated July 3, 1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette  on  July  23,  the  Government  promoted respondents 8  to 12  to the  selection grade  of the Punjab Civil Service cadre. Respondent 15 was similarly promoted on December 19,  1970, respondent  16 on  January 1,  1971  and respondents 13  and 14  on July 27, 1971. On March 14, 1972, the appellant  was also promoted to the selection grade with effect from  January 15,  1972. He  made a representation to the Government against the orders promoting res- 522 pondents to  the selection  grade prior  to him  but it  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

rejected by an order dated June 20, 1973.      A Committee  consisting  of  respondents  2  to  7  was constituted under  Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment  by Promotion)  Regulations  1955,  for selecting persons  from the  Punjab Civil  Service cadre for the purpose  of bringing  them on  the select  list  of  the Indian  Administrative   Service.  The  Committee  held  its meeting at  Chandigarh  on  May  11,  1973  after  which  it prepared a  list under  Regulation 5  selecting respondent 9 for being  brought on  the select  list for  the purpose  of promotion to  the Indian  Administrative Service.  It  would appear that  the appellant’s  name was not put on the select list  since   respondent  2,  the  Chief  Secretary  to  the Government of  Punjab, had  refused to  give  an  ’integrity certificate’ to him. Appellant made a representation against his non-inclusion in the select list and that representation having been  rejected, he filed a Writ Petition (No. 3315 of 1973) in  the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the promotion  of respondent  to the  selection  grade,  the refusal of  the  Chief  Secretary  to  issue  an  ’integrity certificate’ to him and his non-inclusion in the Select List of the Indian Administrative Service.      The appellant’s  Writ Petition  was allowed partly by a learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated August 19, 1974 whereby the order dated July 27, 1971 of the State Government  granting seniority  to two junior officers over the  appellant in  the selection grade was quashed. The learned Judge  directed the  State Government  to reconsider the case  of the  appellant along  with that  of three other officers regarding  the grant of selection grade with effect from June 25, 1971.      The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 484 of 1974) against the decision of the learned Single Judge which was disposed  of by  the High Court on November 19, 1976. It was held  in appeal  that the  requirement of Resolution No. 1.1 as regards the production of the ’integrity certificate’ was in  the nature  of a mere executive instruction, that it went beyond the scope of the statutory regulations, that the provision  requiring   the  production   of  the  ’integrity certificate’  was   unguided  and  was  likely  to  lead  to arbitrariness  and   unreasonableness  and  that  therefore, Resolution No.  1.1 was  ultra vires of Regulations 4 and 5. The entire  record of  the Selection Committee was placed by the State  Government before  the High  Court in the Letters Patent Appeal,  from a  perusal of which the High Court came to the conclusion that the decision of the 523 Commttee not  to include  the appellant’s name in the Select List was  not based  solely on the ground that he was unable to produce  the integrity certificate and that the Committee had given  another cogent reason for its decision viz., that the appellant  was not  suitable for  being  placed  on  the Select List  otherwise also.  Since inclusion  in the select list  for   the  purposes   of  promotion   to  the   Indian Administrative Service was to be made on the basis of merit- cum-seniority, the  Committee, according  to the High Court, was justified  in not including the name of the appellant in that list if, in its opinion, he was not otherwise suitable. The Letters  Patent Appeal  was accordingly dismissed by the High Court,  against which  the  appellant  has  filed  this appeal by special leave.      We will first deal with the question whether resolution No. 1.1.  is ultra  vires regulations  4 and 5 of the Indian Administrative   Service    (Appointment    by    Promotion) Regulations, 1955.  These regulations  aree  framed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

Central Government  in pursuance  of sub-rule 1 of rule 8 of the Indian  Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 in consultation  with the  State Governments  and the  Union Public Service  Commission. Regulations  3 to  7 provide for bringing members  of the  State Civil  Service on the select list for  promotion to  the Indian  Administrative  Service. Regulation 3  deals with  the constitution  of the committee for  making   selections.  Regulation  4  which  deals  with conditions of  eligibility for  promotion provides that each committee shall  meet at intervals, ordinarily not exceeding one year,  and consider the cases of all substantive members of State  Civil Service  who on  the first day of January of that year  had  completed  not  less  than  eight  years  of continuous service, whether officiating or substantive, in a post of Deputy Collector or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto  by the  Government.  By  Clause  (2)  of regulation 4,  the committee  shall not  ordinarily consider the cases  of members  of the  State Civil  Service who have attained the  age of 52 years on the first day of January of the year  in which  the meeting  of the  committee is  held, provided that a member of the State Civil Service whose name appears in  the select  list in force immediately before the date of the meeting of the committee shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the committee, even if  in the  meanwhile he  has attained  the age  of  52 years.      Regulation 5 reads thus:           "5.  Preparation of a list of suitable officers-           (1)  The committee  shall prepare  a list  of such                members of the State Civil Service as satisfy                the condition 524                specified in  regulation 4 and as are held by                the committee to be suitable for promotion to                the service.  The number  of members  of  the                State Civil  Service  included  in  the  list                shall not  be more  than twice  the number of                substantive  vacancies   anticipated  in  the                course  of   the  period   of  twelve  months                commenceing from  the date of the preparation                of the  list, in the posts available for them                under rule  9 of  the recruitment rules or 10                per cent  of the  senior duty  posts borne on                the cadre  of the  State or  group of  States                whichever is greater:                     Provided that  in the year ending on the                31st  December,  1969,  the  maxmimum  limit,                imposed  by   this  sub-regulation,   may  be                exceeded to  such extent as may be determined                by the  Central  Government  in  consultation                with the State Government concerned.           (2)  The selection  for  inclusion  in  such  list                shall be based on merit and suitablity 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 Service:                     Provided that  any junior officer who in                the  opinion   of   the   committee   is   of                exceptional  merit  and  suitability  may  be                assigned a place in the list higher than that                of officers senior to him.           (4)  The list  so prepared  shall be  reviewed and                revised every year.           (5)  If in  the process  of selection,  review  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

              revision it  is  proposed  to  supersede  any                member  of   the  State  Civil  Service,  the                Committee shall  record its  reasons for  the                proposed supersession."      The All India Services Manual, Part II, which is issued under the  authority of  the Government  of  India,  Cabinet Secretariat, (Department  of  Personnel  and  Administrative Reforms),  sets   out  under   appropriate  regulations  the "Government   of   India’s   Decisions"   which   are,   for convenience, referred to by the High Court as "resolutions". 525 Resolution 1.1  which incorporates  a decision  taken by the Government of India reads thus:           "1.1. On  the basis  of the recommendations of the      Committee on  the Prevention of Corruption, it has been      decided  that   the  following  certificate  should  be      recorded by the Chief Secretary to the State Government      who is  the sponsoring  authority  in  respect  of  all      eligible officers  whose cases  are placed  before  the      Selection Committee for consideration:           "The State  Government certify  the  integrity  of      Shri-------------with reference  to the  entries in his      annual confidential reports".      Resolution 1.2 which is on the same subject says:           "1.2. The Selection Committee should also consider      the  question   of  suitability  of  the  officers  for      selection with  reference to their integrity and should      specifically record in their proceedings that they were      satisfied from  the remarks in the confidential reports      of the  officers, selected by them for inclusion in the      Select List,  that  there  was  nothing  against  their      integrity."      The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the appellant’s contention that resolution 1.1 is ultra vires of regulations 4  and 5.  The Letters  Patent Bench of the High Court  different   from  him  and  quashed  the  resolution, observing:           "Regulations 3 to 7 are self-contained regulations      prescribing the whole procedure for the constitution of      the  selection   committee,  qualifications   for   the      eligibility, preparation of list of suitable candidates      etc. It  is evident  from the  plain reading  of  these      regulations  that  integrity  certificate  is  not  the      requirement for  eligibility for  promotion.  Integrity      certificate is  the requirement of resolution 1.1 which      is only  an executive  instruction. The regulations are      quite detailed and the whole mode of selection is given      and merit-cum-seniority  is the main basis for bringing      the persons on the select list. It is nowhere laid down      in the  regulations that  integrity certificate is also      required for  eligibility  for  promotion.  Hence  this      requirement  under   the  executive   instruction  goes      counter  to  the  statutory  regulations.  It  has  put      restrictions and  limitations on  the committee  in its      discretion. Moreover, it is nowhere laid down as to how      the integrity certificate is to be issued. No 526      criteria is  mentioned in  resolution 1.1. No guideline      is provided.  Hence it  can lead  to arbitrariness  and      unreasonableness  in   certain  cases........  I  have,      therefore, no hesitation in holding that resolution 1.1      contravenes the  regulations, which  cannot legally  be      sustained  and   is  struck  down  as  ultra  vires  of      regulations 4 and 5."      We find  it impossible  to sustain  this conclusion and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was  right in upholding the validity of resolution 1.1 on the  ground that  it is  not inconsistent with any of the regulations.  Clause  (2)  of  Regulation  5  provides  that selection for inclusion in the Select List shall be based on merit and  suitability in  all respects,  with due regard to seniority. In  other words,  the test  for inclusion  in the Select  List  is  merit-cum-seniority.  Neither  the  Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 under which the Regulations  are framed nor indeed the provisions of the All India  Services Act,  61 of  1951, under which the Rules are made,  furnish any  guidelines for  assessing  merit  or suitability of  a candidate for inclusion in the Select List or provide  for the  consideration of  any  particular  data before a  candidate can be brought on the Select List. Every executive  authority  is  charged  with  the  obligation  of organising its  services so as to ensure maximum efficiency. The ideal  of maximum  efficiency cannot  be achieved unless persons  who   are  selected   for  public  offices  possess integrity in  as high  a measure  as ability.  Integrity  is indeed the  sine qua non of merit and suitability: no person can be  considered as possessing merit and suitability if he lacks  in  character  and  integrity.  If,  as  provided  by Regulation 5, selection for inclusion in the Select List has to be  based on  merit and  suitability in all respects, and the Rules  and Regulations  do not  furnish guidelines for a proper assessment  of  these  requirements,  the  government would  have   the  power   to  prescribe  the  criteria  for determining whether  the requirements  are fulfilled  by any particular candidate. The prescription of the Regulation for inclusion in  the Select  List is  merit-cum-seniority.  The executive decision which is contained in resolutions 1.1 and 1.2  effectuates   the   purpose   of   that   prescription. Undoubtedly the  government in the exercise of its executive authority cannot  supersede a  statutory rule  or regulation but it  can certainly  effectuate the  purpose of  a rule or regualtion by supplementing it. Resolution 1.2 provides that the Selection  Committee should  consider  the  question  of suitability of  officers with  reference to  their integrity and should  specifically record  in its proceedings, that it is satisfied from the remarks in the confidential reports of the officers  selected by  it for  inclusion in  the  Select List, 527 that there  was nothing  against their integrity. Resolution 1.1 requires  the Chief  Secretary of  the  concerned  State Government, who  is the  sponsoring authority,  to record  a certificate in respect of all eligible officers, whose cases are placed before the Selection Committee for consideration, that the  State Government  certifies the  integrity of  the officers with  reference to  the  entries  in  their  annual confidential reports. These resolutions of the Government of India do  not transgress  the requirement of the Regulations but are  in furtherance  thereof. The  circumstance that the Chief Secretary  has to record a certificate does not confer upon him  unguided or  unfettered discretion  to assess  the integrity of  the  officers  by  granting  or  refusing  the integrity  certificate   at  his   sweet  will.   The  State Government has  to certify  the integrity  of  the  eligible candidate "with  reference to  the  entries  in  his  annual confidential reports".  We are,  therefore, quite clear that the Letters  Patent Bench  of the High Court was in error in striking  down  resolution  1.1  as  being  ultra  vires  of Regulation 5.  Both the  resolutions 1.1 and 1.2, are in our opinion within the scope of the Regulations and are valid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    Though  the   High  Court   was  of  the  opinion  that Resolution 1.1  is ultra  vires of  Regulation 5, it did not quash the  decision  of  the  Selection  Committee  because, having perused  the record  and proceedings of the Selection Committee (which  were  made  available  to  it  during  the hearing of  the Letters  Patent Appeal),  it found  that the non-selection of  the appellant  was not based solely on the ground that  the Chief Secretary had not issued an integrity certificate in  his favour. The proceedings of the Selection Committee, according  to the  High Court, disclosed that the appellant was  not selected  for the reason also that he was "not found suitable otherwise".      The course  adopted by  the High Court has cause to the appellant an  amount of injustice which has to be rectified. It is  clear that the Chief Secretary, Punjab, did not grant integrity certificate  in favour of the appellant because of the adverse  report in  his confidential  roll for  the year 1966-67. One of the reasons which evidently weighed with the Selection Committee  in not  putting the appellant’s name on the Select  List was that the Chief Secretary had not issued the integrity  certificate in  his favour.  Thus,  the  non- inclusion of  appellant’s name  in the  Select List  and the non-issuance  of   the  integrity  certificate  are  closely linked, whether  or not  there was  another reason  also for which the  Selection Committee  kept him out from the Select List. 528      In  so   far  as  the  non-issuance  of  the  integrity certificate is  concerned, it  is undisputed  that its  only justification is the adverse report in the confidential roll of the  appellant for  the year  1966-67. The  circumstances surrounding the adverse entry may therefore bear examination for seeing  whether such preponderating importance could, on the facts  to which  we will immediately advert, be given to the particular entry.      The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of Punjab  by Shri  Phuman Singh,  Under  Secretary  in  the services department,  shows that  after the  adverse remarks were  communicated   to  the   appellant,  he   submitted  a representation requesting that the remarks be expunged. That representation was  referred by  the Government to Shri Sewa Singh, retired District and Sessions Judge, who had made the particular  remarks.   Shri  Sewa  Singh  desired  that  the reference which  was made to him by the Government should be routed through  the High  Court. The  Government then made a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana requesting it to obtain the comments of Shri Sewa Singh. The High Court replied that it was not its practice to call for comments of District and  Sessions Judges  on the  representation of  an officer against  whom adverse  remarks were  made. The  High Court was  once again  requested by  the Government that the Chief Justice  and the Judges may communicate their views to the Government  on the representation made by the appellant. As the  High Court  did not express its view, the Government asked the  appellant to  submit  a  detailed  representation along with  documentary evidence  in order  to show that the adverse entry  was made  mala fide  as alleged  by him.  The appellant submitted his representation again on December 19, 1971,  as  desired  by  the  Government.  After  a  detailed examination of  that representation,  it was  decided by the Government that  since the comments of the Reporting Officer of  the  High  Court  on  the  representation  made  by  the appellant were  not available,  which was  necessary for the proper disposal  of the  representation, a suitable note may be placed  on the  appellant’s character  roll alongwith the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

confidential report  for the  year 1966-67. An attested copy of that  note is annexed to Shri Phuman Singh’s affidavit as annexure 1.  After setting  out the  facts and circumstances narrated above,  that note  says  that  in  the  absence  of necessary comments  of the  authority concerned,  it was not possible for  the Government  to take  any decision  on  the merits of the representation made by the appellant.      The principle  is well-settled  that in accordance with the rules  of  natural  justice,  an  adverse  report  in  a confidential roll cannot be 529 acted upon  to deny  promotional opportunities  unless it is communicated to  the person  concerned so  that  he  has  an opportunity to  improve his  work and  conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not  an empty  formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the  explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse  report is  justified.  Unfortunately,  for  one reason or  another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him,  the Government  has not  been able  to consider his explanation and  decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances,  it is  difficult to  support the  non- issuance of  the integrity certificate to the appellant. The chain of  reaction began  with the  adverse report  and  the infirmity in  the link  of causation  is that no one has yet decided  whether   that  report  was  justified.  We  cannot speculate, in  the absence of a proper pleading, whether the appellant was  not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him.      We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered  that the  appellant was  not brought  on the Select List  because he  was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable  officers provides  by clause  7 that "if in the process of  selection, review  or revision it is proposed to supersede  any  member  of  the  State  Civil  Service,  the Committee  shall   record  its   reasons  for  the  proposed supersession". While  dealing with an identical provision in clause 5  of regulation  5 of  the same  Regulations as they stood then,  this Court  observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor  & Others(1) that "rubberstamp" reasons given for the supersession  of each  officer to  the effect  that  the record of  the officer  concerned was not such as to justify his appointment  "at  this  stage  in  preference  to  those selected", do  not  amount  to  "reasons  for  the  proposed supersession" within  the meaning  of clause  5.  "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and  the actual  conclusions". The  Court  accordingly held that  the mandatory  provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied  with  by  the  Selection  Committee.  That  an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in  support of  the decision  to supersede him. True, that it  is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything  approaching the  judgment of  a Court, but it must at least state, as 530 briefly as  it may,  why it  came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the  Select List.  In the  absence of any such reason, we are unable  to agree  with the High Court that the Selection Committee  had   another  "reason"   for  not  bringing  the

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

appellant on the Select List.      In matters of this nature, particularly when the Select Lists have to be prepared and reviewed from year to year, it becomes difficult  to work  out the  logical consequences of holding that  the case of any particular officer ought to be reconsidered. But,  inevitably, for reasons mentioned above, the case of the appellant shall have to be considered afresh by the Selection Committee. How best to do it has to be left to its  wise discretion  in the  matter of  details, but  in order to  eliminate, in  so far  as one  may, chance  of yet another litigation we ought to indicate the broad frame-work within which  the Committee  should act  and the preliminary steps which  the Government must take in order to facilitate the Committee’s task.      In the first place, the State Government shall consider and  dispose   of  within   two  months   from  to-day   the representations made  by the  appellant on  January 23, 1969 and December 19, 1971 in regard to the adverse report in his confidential roll, for the year 1966-67. We are hopeful that the High  Court will  co-operate with  the Government in the disposal of  the representations.  The  Selection  Committee will, within  three months  thereafter, decide  whether  the appellant should  be included  in the  Select List as of May 11, 1973. That question has to be decided in accordance with the relevant  regulations by  applying the test of merit and suitability-cum-seniority.  For  deciding  the  question  of appellant’s merit  and suitability,  the Selection Committee will take  into consideration  the Government’s  decision on his representations  and his  service record  up-to-date. If the Committee  decides that he is not suitable for inclusion in the  Select List  and should  therefore be superseded, it shall record  its reasons for the proposed supersession. If, on the other hand, the Committee decides to include his name in the Select List, he will be entitled to rank in that list in accordance  with his seniority as of May 11, 1973 unless, in the  opinion of  the Committee, there is a junior officer of exceptional  merit and  suitability who may be assigned a higher place.  The Selection  Committee will review the list for 1973  in accordance  with these  directions.  The  Union Public Service  Commission will  thereafter be  consulted in accordance with  the regulations. The Select List as finally approved by  the Commission will form the Select List of the members of the State Civil Service. 531      We may  indicate that  the Writ  Petition filed  by the appellant and  his appeal to this Court cannot be considered to have  become infructuous  on the  ground that  the  Union Public Service Commission has already approved of the Select List. The  learned Single Judge of the High Court had stayed the final  publication  of  the  list  by  his  order  dated September 24,  1973 and  had directed  by  his  order  dated February 11,  1974 in  C.M. 994 of 1974 that the publication of the Select List will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.      With these  modification, the  appeal  is  allowed  but there will be no order as to costs. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 532