Supreme Court Upholds UPSC’s Selection Process for IPS: Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 315
Judges: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., NAVIN SINHA, J.

Can a court or tribunal act as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert selection committees? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning promotions to the Indian Police Service (IPS). The core issue revolved around whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court of Judicature at Madras could re-evaluate the merit of candidates already assessed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Selection Committee. This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review in matters of expert selection processes.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Navin Sinha. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The first respondent, M. Sathiya Priya, was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu on May 26, 1997. She was later promoted to Superintendent of Police on June 10, 2006. In the seniority list of State Police Service (SPS) officers, she was ranked at serial number 11, effectively considered at serial number 10 for the purpose of this case due to the fourth person being overaged.

For the year 2008, there were ten vacancies for SPS officers to be promoted to the IPS. The selection process is governed by the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The zone of consideration is three times the number of vacancies, meaning at least thirty names should be considered. The names of the first thirty officers, including M. Sathiya Priya, were placed before the Selection Committee.

M. Sathiya Priya’s name was considered at serial number 9 in the zone of consideration. The Selection Committee graded her as “Good” based on an oral assessment of her service records. This grading was not high enough for her to be included in the select list of 2008, due to the availability of officers with higher grading. Subsequently, all ten vacancies were filled, including one by Srimati V. Jayashree, who was initially facing disciplinary proceedings but was later cleared.

Aggrieved by her non-inclusion, M. Sathiya Priya filed an application before the CAT, contending that her service records should have been graded as “Outstanding” or at least “Very Good,” which would have secured her selection. She argued that her service records were superior to many of the selected candidates and that the Selection Committee had acted arbitrarily.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed M. Sathiya Priya’s application on April 7, 2010, directing the authorities to consider her for appointment to the IPS, taking into account her service records from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2008. The CAT also directed that she be notionally appointed to the IPS with effect from May 5, 2009, and given appropriate seniority.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the CAT’s decision on June 24, 2013, dismissing the writ petition filed by the UPSC. The High Court agreed with the CAT that M. Sathiya Priya’s service records warranted a higher grading and that she should have been selected for the IPS.

Legal Framework

The appointment by promotion to the IPS is governed by the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Regulation 5 of these regulations outlines the preparation of a list of suitable officers.

Regulation 5(1) states that the Selection Committee shall meet every year and prepare a list of State Police Service members suitable for promotion to the IPS. The number of officers to be included in the list is determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government.

Regulation 5(2) specifies that the Committee shall consider officers in the order of seniority, with a zone of consideration equal to three times the number of vacancies. It also sets eligibility criteria, such as having completed not less than eight years of continuous service as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

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

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

The Supreme Court also referred to the guidelines framed by the Central Government, which provide a detailed procedure for the Selection Committee to follow. These guidelines specify that the Selection Committee should consider the service records of the last five years preceding the year of selection and that the crucial date for determining eligibility is January 1 of the select list year.

Arguments

Appellant (UPSC) Arguments:

• The CAT and the High Court erred by reassessing the performance of the first respondent as an appellate authority.

• The relevant Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to be considered were from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2007, not April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2008, as considered by the CAT and High Court.

• The Selection Committee’s decision is based on an overall relative assessment of service records, not solely on the grading in the ACRs.

• The CAT and High Court wrongly decided the matter purely on the basis of the grading found in the ACRs of the first respondent and that too of the year 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008.

Respondent (M. Sathiya Priya) Arguments:

• Her service record was mostly “Outstanding” until March 31, 2008, and she should have been graded as “Outstanding” or at least “Very Good.”

• No reasons were provided for superseding her and selecting her juniors.

• The Selection Committee and the UPSC did not objectively evaluate her in accordance with the regulations.

• The other private respondents were graded as “Very Good” but none of the six juniors selected had the “Outstanding” grading in their service records, and some of them did not even have the “Very Good” grading.

• Relying upon the judgment in the case of R.S. Dass vs. Union of India and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 617, she contended that Regulation 5 examines the role of seniority in the process of selection, and importance and primacy was given to merit.

• The categorization of meritorious candidates is done on the basis of service records including Confidential Character Roll as mentioned by senior officers holding high positions.

• Selection on merits confers wide discretion on the authority making the selection, and in the absence of reasons there would be no objectivity, and the members of the State Civil Service might receive discriminatory treatment by the Selection Committee.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and High Court can reassess the merit of candidates already assessed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Selection Committee for promotions to the Indian Police Service (IPS).
2. Whether the CAT and the High Court were correct in considering the Annual Confidential Reports from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2008 instead of 1.4.2002 to 31.03.2007.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• R.S. Dass vs. Union of India and others [1986 (Supp) SCC 617] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the respondent to emphasize the importance of merit and seniority in the selection process.
• UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and others [(2005) 10 SCC 15] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to support the view that the power to classify officers as “Outstanding,” “Very Good,” “Good,” and “Unfit” is vested with the Selection Committee.
• Union of India vs. A.K. Narula [(2007) 11 SCC 10] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to highlight that the DPC has the power to make its own assessment on the basis of entries in CRs and the court cannot interfere if the process is fair.
• M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC [(2008) 2 SCC 119] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal by the Tribunal or the courts.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 320 of the Constitution of India – This article deals with the functions of the Union Public Service Commission.
• All India Services Act, 1951 – This act provides for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the All India Services.
• IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, Rule 9(1) – This rule empowers the framing of regulations for appointment by promotion.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5 – This regulation outlines the procedure for preparing a list of suitable officers for promotion to the IPS.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5(1) – This regulation deals with the preparation of the select list.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5(2) – This regulation deals with the zone of consideration and eligibility criteria.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5(4) – This regulation deals with the classification of officers.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5(5) – This regulation deals with the preparation of the final list.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 6 and 6A – These regulations deal with the observations of State and Central Government.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 7 – This regulation deals with the final decision of the Commission.
• IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 7(4) – This regulation deals with the validity of the select list.

Authority Usage Table

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 UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and others [(2005) 10 SCC 15]* to emphasize that the power to classify officers is vested with the Selection Committee. The Court also relied on Union of India vs. A.K. Narula [(2007) 11 SCC 10]* to highlight that the court should not interfere with the assessment of the DPC unless there is bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. Further, the Court relied on M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC [(2008) 2 SCC 119]* to emphasize that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal by the Tribunal or the courts.

The Supreme Court held that the CAT and the High Court had erred in their assessment of the case. The Court emphasized that the Selection Committee is an expert body, and its assessment should not be interfered with unless there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness. The Court also clarified that the relevant Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to be considered were those from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2007, and not from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2008, as considered by the CAT and the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Expertise of the Selection Committee: The Court emphasized that the Selection Committee is composed of experts in the field and their assessment should be given due consideration.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated that judicial review in such matters is limited and the courts should not act as appellate authorities over the decisions of expert bodies.
• Adherence to Regulations and Guidelines: The Court highlighted that the Selection Committee had followed the prescribed regulations and guidelines in making the selection.
• No Evidence of Bias or Mala Fides: The Court noted that there was no evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness in the selection process.
• Correct ACR Period: The Court clarified that the relevant ACR period was from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2007, as per the guidelines.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of regulations and guidelines, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies unless there is a clear violation of law or evidence of mala fides.

The Court rejected the argument that the Selection Committee should have graded M. Sathiya Priya as “Outstanding” or “Very Good,” stating that the committee’s assessment was based on an overall evaluation of her service records and not solely on the grading in the ACRs. The Court also rejected the argument that the Selection Committee did not objectively evaluate her, stating that the committee is an expert body and its assessment should be trusted.

The Court also considered the case of Srimati V. Jayashree, who was initially included in the select list provisionally due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that her inclusion in the select list was valid as she was cleared in the disciplinary proceedings and her name was made unconditional in the select list.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of the UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter.”

“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.”

“The Courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the assessment of expert selection committees should not be lightly interfered with by courts or tribunals.
• The judgment clarifies that the scope of judicial review in matters of selection is limited to cases where there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness.
• The judgment emphasizes that the Selection Committee is not bound by the grading in the ACRs but should make its own assessment based on the overall service records.
• The judgment clarifies the relevant period for considering ACRs for promotions to the IPS.
• The judgment highlights the importance of following the prescribed regulations and guidelines in the selection process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the CAT and the High Court. No specific directions were given, but the effect of the judgment is that the original selection list prepared by the UPSC stands restored.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should exercise restraint in reviewing the decisions of expert bodies, especially in matters of selection and promotion. It clarifies that the scope of judicial review is limited to cases where there is evidence of bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness, and that courts should not act as appellate authorities over the decisions of expert committees.

This case also clarifies the importance of following the prescribed regulations and guidelines in the selection process and that the Selection Committee is not bound by the grading in the ACRs but should make its own assessment based on the overall service records.

The judgment also sets a precedent regarding the relevant period for considering Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for promotions to the Indian Police Service (IPS), clarifying that the ACRs of the last five years preceding the year of selection are to be considered.