Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1184

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a High Court overturn the assessment of a Selection Committee for promotions to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the High Court of Madras had directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to review its selection process. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Committee’s grading of candidates and direct a review of promotions.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy. Justice R. Banumathi authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding promotions to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2004. The Selection Committee, convened by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), assessed eligible State Civil Service officers and prepared a select list. The first respondent, Jawahar Santhkumar, was considered but not included in the select list.

The Selection Committee meeting was held on 18.12.2004 to fill three vacancies. Jawahar Santhkumar was considered along with other officers. The committee assessed the officers and graded them as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” or “Unfit”. Jawahar Santhkumar was graded as “Good”, while his juniors, T.K. Ponnusamy, N. Mathivanan and R. Vasuki were graded as “Very Good” and included in the select list.

Aggrieved by his non-selection, Jawahar Santhkumar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his application. He then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras, which ruled in his favor, directing the authorities to review the promotions and include him in the select list. The UPSC and the State of Tamil Nadu then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed Jawahar Santhkumar’s application, stating that the Selection Committee had duly considered his case and made a relative assessment of all the officers. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the process. The High Court, however, set aside the Tribunal’s order, noting that there was an unexplained delay in refixing Jawahar Santhkumar’s seniority and that the Selection Committee had downgraded his assessment from “Very Good” in 2003 to “Good” in 2004 without sufficient reason. The High Court also questioned the inclusion of T.K. Ponnusamy, who had a pending criminal case, in the select list. The High Court directed the appellants to convene a review Selection Committee Meeting and promote Jawahar Santhkumar to the IAS from the date his juniors were promoted.

Legal Framework

The selection for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is governed by the All India Services Act, 1951, and the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Promotion Regulations).

Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 empowers the Central Government to make rules and regulations for the recruitment and conditions of service of persons belonging to the Indian Administrative Services.

Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations stipulates that the number of vacancies for promotion to the IAS is determined by the Government of India (DoPT) in consultation with the State Government.

Regulation 5(4) states that the Selection Committee shall classify eligible officers as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good”, or “Unfit” based on an overall relative assessment of their service records.

Regulation 5(5) specifies that the select list shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from the officers classified as “Outstanding”, then “Very Good”, and then “Good”, in order of seniority within each category.

The relevant part of the Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) reads as under:-

“5(4). The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records.

5(5). The List shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as ‘Outstanding’ then from amongst those similarly classified as ‘Very Good’ and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as ‘Good’ and the order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Civil Service.”

Arguments

Arguments by the UPSC:

• The High Court erred in holding that the delay in fixing the first respondent’s seniority prejudiced his chances of promotion.
• The selection to IAS is based on merit, ability, and suitability, and seniority is considered only when these factors are approximately equal.
• The Selection Committee can evolve its own classification, which may differ from the grading in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
• The inclusion of T.K. Ponnusamy in the select list was provisional and subject to clearance in the criminal case pending against him.

Arguments by the State of Tamil Nadu:

• The High Court was incorrect in holding that the authorities acted with prejudice against the first respondent.
• There was no illegality in the selection process.

Arguments by Jawahar Santhkumar (First Respondent):

• The State Government deliberately delayed the order fixing his seniority, which prejudiced his chances of promotion.
• Regulation 5(2) stipulates that the Selection Committee shall consider cases in order of seniority, and the delay in fixing his seniority affected the selection process.
• The Selection Committee did not provide reasons for downgrading him from “Very Good” to “Good”.
• T.K. Ponnusamy, who had tainted antecedents, was rated as “Very Good,” while he was downgraded without valid reasons.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the Selection Committee did not follow the uniform standards in classifying individual officers which has a direct bearing on their selection to the IAS.
2. Whether the High Court was right in directing the appellant to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting and promote the first respondent to the IAS from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15: The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs.
• M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (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. Courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
• R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 617: The Supreme Court held that seniority is considered only where merit, ability and suitability are approximately equal. The amended provisions of Regulation 5 have curtailed and restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it has given primacy to merit. The Selection Committee is not required to record reasons for the supersession of the officers of the State Civil Service.
• Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796: The Supreme Court held that when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• All India Services Act, 1951: The Act regulates the recruitment and conditions of service of persons belonging to the Indian Administrative Services.
• IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Promotion Regulations): These regulations govern the selection process for promotion to the IAS.
• Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations: Specifies how the number of vacancies for promotion to the IAS is determined.
• Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations: Outlines the classification of eligible officers by the Selection Committee.
• Regulation 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations: Details the procedure for preparing the select list.

[TABLE] of How Authorities Were Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that the Selection Committee has the power to evolve its own classification, which may be different from the grading in the ACRs.
• M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (2008) 2 SCC 119: The Court used this precedent to highlight that the courts cannot act as an appellate authority over the Selection Committee’s decisions.
• R.S. Dass v. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 617: The Court cited this case to reiterate that seniority is not the primary factor in selection and that the Selection Committee is not required to record reasons for supersession.
• Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796: The Court referenced this case to highlight that the courts have limited scope to interfere with the assessment of expert bodies like the Selection Committee.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that the Selection Committee, being an expert body, has the authority to assess the suitability of candidates for promotion. The Court emphasized that judicial review in such matters is limited and that courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness. The Court also highlighted that merit is the primary criterion for selection to the IAS, and seniority is only considered when candidates are approximately equal in merit. The Court noted that the Selection Committee is not required to give reasons for its classification of candidates and that the High Court should not have faulted the Selection Committee for downgrading the first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”.

[TABLE] Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments made by the parties and the relevant legal provisions. It also considered the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal. The Court rejected the argument that the first respondent’s seniority should have been the primary factor in his selection. The Court also rejected the argument that the Selection Committee was required to record reasons for downgrading the first respondent from “Very Good” to “Good”. The Court concluded that the Selection Committee had acted lawfully and that the High Court had erred in interfering with its decision.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in holding that the Selection Committee did not follow uniform standards in classifying individual officers. The Court also held that the High Court was not right in directing the appellant to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting and promote the first respondent to the IAS. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Selection Committee of experts.

The Court quoted from UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15, stating, “That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so-called down gradation of the first respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term “downgradation” is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” and “unfit” is vested with the Selection Committee.”

The Court further quoted from Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others (2018) 15 SCC 796, stating, “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. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness.”

The Court also stated, “On overall assessment of service records, the name of the first respondent was not included in the Select List due to the statutory limit of its size and as officers with higher grading in the Select List were available as per the provisions of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the authority of the Selection Committee in matters of promotions to the IAS.
• Courts should not interfere with the assessment of expert bodies like the Selection Committee unless there is clear evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness.
• Merit is the primary criterion for selection to the IAS, and seniority is considered only when candidates are approximately equal in merit.
• The Selection Committee is not required to record reasons for its classification of candidates.
• The judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in matters of promotions to the All India Services.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court directed that the challenge by the first respondent to G.O. Ms. No.1125 dated 26.11.2011 shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the views expressed in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Selection Committee for promotions to the IAS is an expert body whose assessment should not be interfered with by the courts unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness. The judgment reinforces the principle that merit is the primary criterion for selection, and seniority is only considered when candidates are approximately equal in merit. The judgment also clarifies that the Selection Committee is not required to record reasons for its classification of candidates.

This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the selection process for promotions to the IAS.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar and Others upholds the authority of the UPSC Selection Committee in matters of promotions to the IAS. The Court emphasized that the selection process is based on merit and that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies unless there is clear evidence of bias or arbitrariness. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and reinforces the importance of merit in the selection process for the All India Services.