Summary
The Supreme Court allowed UPSC’s appeal and set aside directions to appoint an unsuccessful State Police Service officer to the IPS. For the 2008 select list, the relevant five-year ACR period ended on 31 March 2007, and the Selection Committee had correctly used it. The Committee could independently assess the records rather than reproduce State ACR grades. No malice or arbitrariness justified judicial reassessment of comparative merit, and another officer’s provisional inclusion followed by appointment after disciplinary clearance was valid.
Issues
- Which ACR period governed the 2008 IPS promotion select list.
- Whether courts could substitute their grading for the Selection Committee’s independent assessment.
- Whether provisional inclusion and subsequent appointment after disciplinary clearance were permissible.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 5, particularly sub-regulations (4) and (5), Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955The selection required overall relative assessment and inclusion in order of grading, with seniority within each category and provisional inclusion where the specified adverse matters were pending. The Committee followed this scheme. (¶¶ 5, 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21)
Held
- Read with the applicable guidelines, the 2008 selection required consideration of ACRs from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2007. The CAT and High Court wrongly substituted the period ending 31 March 2008. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
- The Committee must assess all relevant entries and records independently and is not bound by the State’s overall ACR grades. Recording reasons for a different classification is desirable but was not a legal requirement under Regulation 5(4). Courts retain review for bias, mala fides, arbitrariness or serious statutory violations, but cannot act as appellate selection bodies reassessing comparative merit. No such vitiating defect was established here. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The other officer was validly included provisionally while disciplinary proceedings were pending and appointed after exoneration and unconditional inclusion. This did not justify displacing her with the first respondent. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The absence of State ACR records from the files later produced by UPSC did not establish that the Committee had lacked them. They had been available and were returned to the State after selection; the High Court could have called for them. (¶ 22)
Result
UPSC appeal allowed; CAT order dated 7 April 2010 and High Court judgment dated 24 June 2013 directing the officer’s appointment set aside. No order as to costs.