Union Public Service Commission, Delhi v. P. Harikumar (SC) BS195586
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- P. Venkatarama Reddi and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Civil Appeals Nos. 2309-11 of 2005, Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 13467-69 of 2004. D/d. 30.3.2005.

Union Public Service Commission, Delhi - Appellant

Versus

P. Harikumar and others - Respondents

Promotion - Selection - Judicial review - Administrative Law - Exclusion of judicial review - Expert body - Limits of - For promotion from State Police Service to IPS - Selection Committee - Powers to revise assessments of incumbents - Selection Committee "downgraded" the assessment resulted in non-selection and that there was no basis for down gradation - Propriety - The respondent authorities directed to reconsider the cases of applicants by conducting a fresh selection for appointment by promotion of the State police officers of IPS by CAT as well as High Court - Supreme Court also directing similar relief - New Selection Committee reiterated the decision of the previous Selection Committee by giving reasons - Held, Supreme Court not to sit in judgment over the fresh process of consideration made by the Selection Committee.

[Paras 3 and 5]

ORDER

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. In these appeals the question relating to the propriety of selection/promotion of the officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Police Service to the Indian Police Service against ten vacancies pertaining to the year 2002, has been raised. Respondent 1 Shri P. Harikumar and Respondent 2 Shri M. Kantha Rao filed the OAs in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench questioning their non-selection. It was the contention of the said respondents that in spite of their gradation as "Outstanding" in the ACRs relating to the five preceding years, the Selection Committee headed by the member of the Union Public Service Commission, "downgraded" the assessment and graded them as "Very Good" instead of "Outstanding" for the year 2000 which had resulted in their non-selection and that there was no basis for such down gradation or revision of assessment. This contention found its acceptance with the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-2-2003, while allowing the applications, held that the decision taken by the Selection Committee was arbitrary and that the "down gradation" was not based on tangible material. The respondent authorities were, therefore, directed to reconsider the cases of applicants by conducting a fresh selection for appointment by promotion of the State police officers to IPS for the year 2002. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Union Public Service Commission in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by means of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. It may be mentioned at this stage that before the Tribunal M/s. K. Venugopal Rao and B. Srinivasulu (Respondents 7 and 8 respectively in the present appeals) were only impleaded for the reason that Respondents 1 and 2 claimed superior merit in comparison with those officers. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 7-8-2003 also directed that fresh exercise for selection for the year 2002 shall be made within two months and that till that is done the process of selection for the year 2003 should be deferred. When the matter came up for hearing before us on 9-12-2004 after notice to all concerned, the following interim order was passed:

5. Pursuant to this interim direction the Selection Committee, which was composed of a different set of members did consider the question whether the grade of "Outstanding" as recorded in the ACRs should be maintained. The Selection Committee came to the conclusion that the gradation of Respondents 1 and 2 as "Outstanding" in the year 2000 was not justified and they deserve to be treated as "Very Good" only. In other words the decision taken by the previous Committee has in fact been reiterated. Therefore, the process of fresh consideration vis-a-vis the limited aspect on which the Tribunal and the High Court set aside the selection has since been gone through. The Selection Committee has also recorded certain reasons in support of their conclusion. Having perused the same, we feel that nothing further needs to be done in these appeals as there was a fresh consideration of the claim of Respondents 1 and 2 for being treated as "Outstanding" for the year 2000. Suffice it to mention that we are not inclined to sit in judgment over the fresh process of consideration made by the Selection Committee. Incidentally, we may mention that the process of selection for the years 2003 and 2004 had also taken place. However, so far they are not given effect to in view of the order passed by us on 9-12-2004, we direct that further steps should be taken pursuant to the selection already made for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and the requisite notification appointing the officers, whose selection is approved by the Central Government, shall be issued with expedition as already a good deal of time has been consumed in this litigation.

6. As regards the year 2005, we are informed that the time is ripe for considering the cases of the eligible officers for selection to IPS. This process should also be undertaken at an early date and we have no doubt that the cases of Respondents 1 and 2, whoever has not been selected so far, will receive due consideration while finalising the selection for the year 2005.

7. The appeals are disposed of with the above observations.

8. Applications for impleadment have been filed by certain officers who are senior to Respondents 1 and 2. Their main contention appears to be that when compared to Respondents 1 and 2 they have superior merit and if the grading of Respondents 1 and 2 is revised in their favour the impleading officials should be given the same treatment. Having regard to the fact that we have not granted any relief to Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the selection for the year 2002 and the cases of the officers, who are now seeking to file application for impleadment, have been considered in the subsequent years, we are not inclined to pass any orders on these applications for impleadment.

9. The applications for impleadment viz. IAs Nos. 2-4 are dismissed as unnecessary.

.