Summary
The High Court directed review of IAS promotions and promotion of an officer whose relative grading was lower than that of selected candidates. The Supreme Court held that merit-based classification controlled selection, with seniority relevant within the same category. The expert committee could assess records independently and was not legally required to record reasons for each classification. No arbitrariness was established, and the High Court’s direction was set aside.
Issues
- Whether corrected seniority entitled the officer to selection ahead of higher-graded candidates.
- Whether a changed overall grading without recorded reasons invalidated selection.
- Whether judicial reassessment of comparative merit was permissible.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 5(4) and 5(5), IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955The committee classified candidates by overall relative assessment and selected higher categories first, with seniority ordering candidates within each category. (¶¶ 11, 20, 22, 25)
Held
- Selection depended on merit, ability and suitability, with seniority relevant among approximately equal candidates. The officer had been considered but fell below the available places because of lower grading. (¶¶ 14, 17, 20, 25)
- A candidate facing criminal proceedings could be provisionally included subject to clearance and an integrity certificate; that inclusion did not itself establish statutory violation. (¶ 16)
- Classification was for the expert committee, which could independently assess the records. No legal requirement to record reasons for the relative grading arose under these regulations. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Neither the decision nor the process was arbitrary, and the High Court could not substitute its assessment of merit or order the directed review and promotion. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeals allowed and the High Court judgment set aside. The officer’s separate challenge concerning the later dismissal order was left to consideration on its own merits, uninfluenced by this judgment.