http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UMA CHARAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1981

BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1915            1982 SCR  (1) 353  1981 SCC  (4) 102        1981 SCALE  (3)1246  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 160  (2)

ACT:      Indian  Police   Service  (Appointment   by  Promotion) Regulations  1955-Regulation  5(5)-Scope  of-Police  officer reverted to  a lower  rank-Reasons  for  reversion-  Whether necessary to record.

HEADNOTE:      On being  selected by a Selection Committee constituted under the  Indian Police  Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955  the appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police  prior   to  13th   April,  1960,   was  promoted  as Superintendent of Police.      In September,  1963, purporting to act under regulation 5 of  the Regulations,  the Selection  Committee recommended his supersession, along with some others, on the ground that the Committee  considered that  the records of "the officers were not  such as to justify their appointment to the Indian Police Service at this stage". He was reverted in September. 1964.      Before the  High Court the appellant contended that the Selection Committee’s failure to specify the reasons for his supersession, in  contravention of the Regulations, rendered the list non est. This plea was rejected.      Allowing the appeal: ^       HELD:  The Select  List reverting  the appellant  to a lower post  prepared in  accordance with the recommendations of the  Selection Committee  contravened the mandate in sub- regulation (5) of Regulation 5. [358 G]      Regulation 5(5)  imposed  a  mandatory  duty  upon  the Selection Committee  to record  its reasons for the proposed supersession. In  the context of the protection conferred on public servants by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution it was incumbent  on the  Selection Committee  to  have  stated reasons in  a manner  which would disclose how the record of each officer  superseded stood in relation to the records of others who  were to  be preferred.  This is the only visible safeguard against  possible injustice  and arbitrariness  in making selections.  Had that  been done  it would  have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

possible to correlate facts on service records considered by the Selection  Committee with  the conclusions reached. [358 C] 354      Reasons which  are the  links between  the materials on which  certain   conclusions  are   based  and   the  actual conclusions disclose  how the mind is applied to the subject matter for  a decision,  They should reveal a rational nexus between the  facts considered  and the  conclusions reached. [358 E]      Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797; applied.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2173 of 1970.      From the judgment and order dated 29th October, 1969 of the Madhya  Pradesh High  Court in  Misc. Petition No. 89 of 1967.      Gyan  Chand   Mathur  and   A.G.  Ratnaparkhi  for  the Appellant.      D.P. Mohanty and R.A. Shroff for Respondent No. 1.      The judgment of the Court was delivered by      KOSHAL J.  This is  an appeal by certificate granted by the High  Court of  Madhya Pradesh  against a  judgment of a learned Single  Judge of  that Court dismissing with costs a petition filed by the present appellant under article 226 of the Constitution  of India challenging his demotion from the post  of   Superintendent  of   Police  to  that  of  Deputy Superintendent of Police.      2. The  facts giving  rise to  the dispute  between the appellant and  the State  of Madhya Pradesh are now admitted on all  hands and may be briefly stated. Prior to 13th April 1960 the  appellant was a member of the Madhya Pradesh State Police Service and was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. On  that date  a meeting  of the Committee set up in accordance with  regulation 3  of the  India Police  Service (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations,  1955  (hereinafter called the Regulations) was held, and therein was prepared a list of  such members  of the  State Police  Service as were eligible and  suitable for  promotion to  the Indian  Police Service. The  said  Committee  is  popularly  known  as  the "Selection  Committee"   and  will   be   so   referred   to hereinafter. The  list was  approved  by  the  Union  Public Service Commission  and  thus  became  the  Select  List  as envisaged in  regulation 7 of the Regulations. The appellant was accordingly  promoted to  the Indian  Police Service and was posted  as a  Superintendent of Police which position he held till  the impugned reversion effected by an order dated 11th September, 1964. The reason for that reversion was that on the 18th of 355 September 1963  the Selection  Committee reviewed the Select List, A purporting to act in accordance with regulation 5 of the Regulations  and recommended  that the  appellant and 27 others be  superseded The  sole ground  for the supersession was thus stated by the Selection Committee:           "The  Committee   consider  that,  on  an  overall      assessment, the  records of these officers are not such      as to  justify their  appointment to  the Indian Police      Service at this stage."       3.  The reversion  of  the  appellant  was  challenged before the  High Court  with the  contention inter alia that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the ground set out by the Selection Committee in that behalf did not  specify any  reason, good,  bad or indifferent, for his supersession, that under regulation 5 of the Regulations it was duty of the Selection Committee to record reasons and that not having been done the review of the Select List made on the  18th of September, 1963 was clearly in contravention of the  Regulations and,  therefore, as  good as non-est. Th contention was  turned down  by the  learned Single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed the appellant’s petition, with the following observations:           "The  contention   of  learned   counsel  for  the      applicant  that   the  giving  of  reasons  under  sub-      regulation (5)  of  regulation  5  for  superseding  an      officer makes the order justiciable, does not appeal to      us. It  is not for the Court to see whether the reasons      given by the Committee are sufficient or not, but it is      for the State Government and the Central Public Service      Commission to see the sufficiency of the reasons."       The  contention  thus  rejected  has  been  reiterated before us.      4. Regulations  5 and  7  of  the  Regulations  may  be reproduced here with advantage:      "5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers.      (1) The  Committee shall prepare a list of such members           of  the   State  Police  Service  as  satisfy  the           condition specified  in regulation  4 and  as  are           held by the Committee to be suitable for promotion           to the Service. 356      (2)  The selection  for inclusion in such list shall be           based on  merit and  suitability 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 Police 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 revision           it is  proposed to  supersede any  members of  the           State Police  Service, the  Committee shall record           its reasons for the proposed supersession."      7.   Select List.      (1)  The Commission shall consider the list prepared by           the  Committee  along  with  the  other  documents           received from  the State Government and, unless it           considers any change necessary, approve the list.      (2)  If the  Commission consider  it necessary  to make           any changes  in the  list received  from the State           Government, the  Commission shall inform the State           Government  of  the  changes  proposed  and  after           taking into  account the  comments, if any, of the           State Government,  may approve  the  list  finally           with such  modification, if  any, as  may, in  its           opinion, be just and proper.      (3)  The list  as finally  approved by  the  Commission           shall form  the Select  List of the members of the           State Police Service.      (4)  The Select List shall ordinarily be in force until           it is  reviewed or revised in accordance with sub-           regulation (4) of regulation 5: 356

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

              Provided that  in the  event of a grave lapse           in the  conduct or  performance of  duties on  the           part of  any member  of the  State Police  Service           included in  the Select  List, a special review of           the Select  List may  be made  at any  time at the           instance  of   the  State   Government   and   the           Commission may.  if it  so thinks  fit, remove the           name of  such member  of the  State Police Service           from the Select List."      It is  not disputed  that a Select List may be reviewed as stated  in sub-regulation  (4) of  regulation 7 read with sub-regulation (5)  of regulation  5. So  all that has to be determined is  whether the  Selection Committee was bound to give reasons  for the  supersession  of  the  appellant  and whether the  note recorded  by it  which sets out the ground for supersession does give any reason at all.      The matter  is really  covered by  a decision  of  this Court in  Union of  India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others. In that case also the ground set out by the Selection Committee for the proposed supersession was:           "On an  over all  assessment, the records of these      officers are  not such  as to justify their appointment      to  the  Indian  Administrative  Service/Indian  Police      Service at this stage in preference to those selected."      Except for  the words "in preference to those selected" the ground  just above  set out is identical with the ground given  by  the  Selection  Committee  in  the  case  of  the appellant. Rejecting  this ground  as being  no statement of reasons  within   the  meaning   of  sub-regulation  (5)  of regulation 5, Mathew, J., speaking for the Court, observed:           "We next  turn to  the provisions  of Regulation 5      (5)  imposing  a  mandatory  duty  upon  the  Selection      Committee  to   record  "its   reasons   for   proposed      supersession".  We   find  considerable  force  in  the      submission made  on behalf  of the respondents that the      "rubber-stamp"  reason   given  mechanically   for  the      supersession  of   each  officer  does  not  amount  to      "reasons for the proposed supersession." 358      the most  that could  be said  for the  stock reason is      that it is a general description of the process adopted      in arriving  at a  conclusion. This apology for reasons      to  be   recorded  does  not  go  beyond  indicating  a      conclusion in  each case that the record of the officer      concerned is not such as to justify his appointment "at      this stage in preference to those selected".           "In the  context of  the effect upon the rights of      aggrieved persons,  as members  of a public service who      are entitled  to  just  and  reasonable  treatment,  by      reason of  protections conferred  upon them by articles      14 and  16 of  the Constitution, which are available to      them throughout  their service, it was incumbent on the      Selection Committee  to have stated reasons in a manner      which would  disclose how  the record  of each  officer      superseded stood  in relation  to records of others who      were  to   be  preferred,   particularly  as   this  is      practically  the   only  remaining   visible  safeguard      against possible  injustice and arbitrariness in making      selections. If  that had  been done,  facts on  service      records  of   officers  considered   by  the  Selection      Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions      reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on      which certain  conclusions are  based  and  the  actual      conclusions. They  disclose how  the mind is applied to      the subject  matter for a decision whether it is purely

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

    administrative or  quasi-judicial. They should reveal a      rational nexus  between the  facts considered  and  the      conclusions reached.  Only in  this way can opinions or      decisions recorded  be shown  to be manifestly just and      reasonable. We  think that it is not enough to say that      preference should  be given  because a  certain kind of      process was  gone through  by the  Selection Committee.      This is  all that  the supposed  statement  of  reasons      amounts to.  We, therefore,  think that  the  mandatory      provisions of Regulation 5 (5) were not complied with."       With  respect we  fully agree and hold that the Select List prepared  in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee  made in its meeting held on the 18th of September 1963  contravened the  mandate in sub-regulation 5 of regulation 5.      5. In  the result  we accept  the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment  and quash  the  Select  List  just  above mentioned in so far 359 as it  relates to  the appellant,  as also  the order of his reversion.  He   shall  be  entitled  to  all  consequential benefits even  though he  has since retired from service. In the circumstances of the case, however, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs. P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 360