Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for IAS: Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1234
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi

Can a High Court interfere with the selection process of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) conducted by expert committees? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the selection of non-State Civil Service (SCS) officers to the IAS. The Court clarified that judicial review in such matters is limited and that the merit-based decisions of expert bodies should not be lightly overturned. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the selection process while ensuring fairness and objectivity.

Case Background

The case revolves around the selection of two non-SCS officers to the IAS for the Selection Year 2014. The appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, and respondent No. 1, Aditya Narayan Roy, both belonged to the Bihar Agricultural Service. The Department of Agriculture was tasked with recommending two officials to the State Screening Committee, which would then recommend ten names to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for final selection.

Initially, the Department of Agriculture’s Selection Committee recommended Baidyanath Yadav and Ram Prakash Sahni (Respondent No. 9). However, the concerned minister directed that Aditya Narayan Roy’s name should also be included. Consequently, the Agriculture Department forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee, placing Aditya Narayan Roy’s name at Serial No. 3.

The State Screening Committee recommended ten names to the UPSC, including Baidyanath Yadav and Ram Prakash Sahni, but not Aditya Narayan Roy. The UPSC ultimately selected two officers, one of whom was Baidyanath Yadav. This led Aditya Narayan Roy to challenge the selection process.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aditya Narayan Roy initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, seeking the quashing of Baidyanath Yadav’s appointment and directions for his own name to be recommended. The Tribunal dismissed his application, noting that the departmental minister’s order did not find him to be the most meritorious candidate, and there was no illegality in his name being placed at Serial No. 3. The Tribunal also noted that even if his name was at the top of the list, it would not have changed the fact that his name was considered by the State Screening Committee.

The High Court of Patna, however, overturned the Tribunal’s decision. It held that the State Screening Committee failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound to do. The High Court also noted that Aditya Narayan Roy’s name should have been prioritized given that his name was recommended the previous year. The High Court directed the State Screening Committee to recommend Aditya Narayan Roy’s name to the UPSC, which would then consider his case.

Legal Framework

The selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, specifically Rule 8(2), which deals with the selection of officers of outstanding merit and ability.

The Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, were framed in pursuance of Rule 8(2). As per Regulation 4, the State Government is required to recommend names of eligible persons to the UPSC Committee. Regulation 5 provides that the UPSC Committee, after considering the names proposed by the State Government, may recommend names of suitable persons for appointment to the IAS. The suitability of a person is to be determined through scrutiny of service records and a personal interview.

The guidelines issued in 2003 specify that the assessment of candidates is based on their service records, particularly the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding five years, and the personal interview. Equal weightage is to be given to both. The guidelines also provide a marking system for the ACRs, with 10 marks for “Outstanding,” 8 for “Very Good,” 6 for “Good,” and 4 for “Average.” The minimum score required for selection is 50% in each component.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in giving weight to the serial order in which the names of the officers were placed before the State Screening Committee.
• Non-disclosure of reasons by a selection committee does not vitiate their decision unless required by rules or administrative instructions, citing National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481 and Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600.
• There was no direction by the departmental minister to keep Respondent No. 1’s name at the top.
• The direction for reconsideration of his name alone, rather than of all the recommended candidates, was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court.

State of Bihar’s Arguments:

• The departmental Selection Committee and the State Screening Committee had undertaken a fair and objective assessment of the service records under the 1997 Regulations.
• In the absence of any allegation of mala fides or bias, it could not be held that there was any undue influence on the committee members.
• The High Court could not have reassessed the findings of the committees on merit, citing Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• As per the 1997 Regulations, the officers were to be recommended by the State Government based on whether they possessed outstanding merit and ability, which was to be assessed based on objectively determinable criteria such as the Annual Confidential Records (ACRs) of the officers.
• Respondent No. 1’s ACRs reflected better grading than the Appellant’s, having the grade “Excellent” with respect to every aspect as opposed to P’s “Very Goods”.
• The minutes of the meeting of the State Screening Committee noted that Respondent No. 1’s name had not been recommended by the departmental Selection Committee and would hence not be considered.
• The addition of his name to the list by the Minister was completely valid, in light of the letter dated 22.05.2014 of the General Administration Department (GAD).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. What is the scope of judicial review of the process governing the selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS?
2. Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 – The Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
• Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796 – The Supreme Court held that it is not open to the Courts to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee.
• National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481 – The Supreme Court held that administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. The principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement.
• Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600 – The Supreme Court affirmed that non-disclosure of reasons by a selection committee does not vitiate their decision, unless required by rules or administrative instructions.
• R.S. Dass v. Union of India, (1986) Supp SCC 617 – The Supreme Court held that administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – Deals with the selection of officers of outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with the affairs of the State, who are not members of the State Civil Service.
• Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 – Requires the State Government to recommend names of eligible persons to the UPSC Committee.
• Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 – Provides that the UPSC Committee may recommend names of suitable persons for appointment to the IAS.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119* to reiterate that the scope of judicial review in selection matters is limited.
• The Court followed Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796* to emphasize that High Courts cannot reassess the findings of expert committees on merit.
• The Court cited National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481* and Union Public Service Commission v. Arun Kumar Sharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600* to support that selection committees are not required to disclose reasons for their decisions unless mandated by rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that judicial review in matters of selection by expert bodies is limited. The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the judiciary to re-evaluate the merits of candidates or substitute its judgment for that of expert committees. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed rules and regulations in the selection process. The Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-assessing the merits of the candidates and also by directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No.1’s name.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating the merits of the candidates and directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name. The Court concluded that the selection process was not vitiated by any bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court erred in giving weight to the serial order of names, as the order of placement only acquires relevance at the stage of preparation of the Select List by the UPSC Committee.
• The High Court was wrong to conclude that the decision of the State Screening Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons.
• The Court found no hint of arbitrariness, mala fide, or bias in the recommendation of two other officers, including the Appellant, by the Department of Agriculture in 2014.
• The direction issued by the High Court directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely without jurisdiction.

“Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules.”

“It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates.”

“Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non­selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement.”

Key Takeaways

• Judicial review in selection matters is limited, and courts cannot re-assess the merit of individual candidates.
• Selection committees are not required to disclose reasons for their decisions unless mandated by rules or regulations.
• The serial order of names in the lists prepared by departmental and State committees is not relevant in the selection process.
• High Courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert committees unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or serious violation of statutory rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeals, thereby upholding the selection of the Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav to the Indian Administrative Service.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the scope of judicial review in matters of selection by expert bodies is limited. The courts cannot re-assess the merit of individual candidates or substitute their judgment for that of expert committees, unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or serious violation of statutory rules. The judgment reinforces the principle that selection committees are not required to disclose reasons for their decisions unless mandated by rules or regulations. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in the selection process for non-SCS officers to the IAS. The Court emphasized that the decisions of expert committees should not be lightly overturned and that the judiciary should not interfere with the selection process unless there is clear evidence of bias, mala fides, or a serious violation of statutory rules. The judgment upholds the importance of maintaining the integrity of the selection process while ensuring fairness and objectivity.