http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: R. TAMILMANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/02/1992

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. (CJ) BENCH: KANIA, M.H. (CJ) SAHAI, R.M. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1120            1992 SCR  (1)1072  1992 SCC  (2) 410        JT 1992 (2)   425  1992 SCALE  (1)570

ACT:      Indian    Administrative   Service   (Appointment    by Selection) Regulations 1956.      Indian  Administrative Service-Selection  form  amongst Non-State   Civil  Service   Officers-Selection   Committee- Assessment of merit and ability-Rating process-Three members of  Selection  Committee rating  a  candidate  ‘Outstanding’ while  other  two rating him as ‘very good’-Held  there  was consensus  regarding  ability  of  candidate-Candidate  held eligible for consideration.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant  was interviewed for  selection  to  the Indian Administrative Service for the year 1990 from amongst the  Non-State Civil Service Officers in the State of  Tamil Nadu.  Three of the members of the Selection Committee rated him as ‘outstanding’ whereas the other two members rated him as  ‘very  good’.   But his name  was  not  recommended  for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission on  the ground that there was no ‘consensus’ regarding his  ability. The  appellant  filed  an  application  before  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras for a  direction  that  he should   be   considered  and  appointed   to   the   Indian Administrative Service.  His application was dismissed.   He filed an appeal in this Court.      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD : The Central Administrative Tribunal was in error in  dismissing the application of the appellant.  If out  of five  committee  members  three  ranked  the  appellant   as ‘outstanding’  and two as ‘very good’, the result  would  be that  there  was definitely consensus that he was  at  least ‘very good’ and in fact a little better.   Therefore,  there was  no reason why his case could not have been put  up  for consideration  by  the  Union  Public  Service   Commission. Accordingly,  it  is directed that his case be  put  up  for consideration  by  the Union Public Service  Commission  for appointment in the vacancy of 1990. [1073 H, 1074A-B]

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

JUDGMENT:                                                       1073      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3145 of 1991.      From  the  Judgement and order dated  8.4.1991  of  the Central   Administrative   Tribunal,  Madras   in   Original Application No. 810 of 1990.      T.S.   Krishnamurthy  Iyer,  S.  Sivasubramaniam,   R.A Perumal and R. Mohan for the Appellants.      V.C.  Mahajan,  S.N.  Sikka  and  V.K.  Verma  for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of Court was delivered by KANIA, CJ. This appeal arises out of an order of a Bench  of Centrol  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras,  dismissing   an application  filed by the appellant herein.  The  prayer  in the application was to consider and appoint the appellant to the  Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred  to as  ‘IAS’) for the year 1990.  It appears that for the  year 1990 the appellant was one of the five candidates called for interview  for selection to the I.A.S. from among  the  Non- State Civil Service Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu.  It seems   to   be  common  ground  that   under   the   Indian Administrative     Service   (Appointment   by    Selection) Regulations,  1956, read with similar  Regulations,  namely, Indian  Administrative Service (Appointment  by  Promotion), Regulations,  1955 persons not belonging to the State  Civil Service,  who are of outstanding merit and ability  and  who have completed not less than eight years of services, can be considered  for appointment to the I.A.S. by selection.   In the   case   of  the  appellant  the   Selection   Committee interviewed  the appellant along with four other  candidates recommending  their  names  to  the  Union  Public   Service Commission  for approval.  In this rating process  three  of the  members of the Select Committee rated the appellant  as "outstanding  " whereas the other two members rated  him  as "very  good".  By curious process of logic, which we find  a little  difficult  to understand,  the  Selection  Committee declined  to  recommend his name for  consideration  on  the ground that there was no ‘consensus’ regarding his ability.      In  our view it is clear that if out of five  committee members three ranked the appellant as "outstanding" and  two as  ‘very  good’,  the  result  would  be  that  there   was definitely consensus that he was at least "very                                                        1074 good"  and  in  fact a little  better.   Therefore,  in  our opinion,  there  was no reason why his case could  not  have been  put up for consideration by the Union  Public  service Commission.   The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,   with respect,  was in error in dismissing the application of  the appellant as it did.  We direct the case of the appellant to be  put  up for consideration by the  Union  Public  Service Commission  for  appointment in the vacancy of 1990  on  the footing of the consensus as we have set out earlier.      The  appeal  is allowed as  aforestated.   There  will, however, be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                                      Appeal allowed.                                                        1075