Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
& ANR [1981] INSC 143 (20 August 1981)
KOSHAL, A.D.
KOSHAL, A.D.
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1915 1982 SCR (1) 353 1981
SCC (4) 102 1981 SCALE (3)1246
CITATOR INFO :
R 1984 SC 160 (2)
ACT:
Indian Police Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations 1955-Regulation 5(5)-Scope of-Police officer reverted to
a lower rank-Reasons for reversion- Whether necessary to record.
HEADNOTE:
On being selected by a Selection Committee
constituted under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955 the appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police prior to
13th April, 1960, was promoted as Superintendent of Police.
In September, 1963, purporting to act under
regulation 5 of the Regulations, the Selection Committee recommended his
supersession, along with some others, on the ground that the Committee
considered that the records of "the officers were not such as to justify
their appointment to the Indian Police Service at this stage". He was
reverted in September.
1964.
Before the High Court the appellant contended
that the Selection Committee's failure to specify the reasons for his
supersession, in contravention of the Regulations, rendered the list non est.
This plea was rejected.
Allowing the appeal:
HELD: The Select List reverting the appellant
to a lower post prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the
Selection Committee contravened the mandate in sub- regulation (5) of
Regulation 5. [358 G] Regulation 5(5) imposed a mandatory duty upon the
Selection Committee to record its reasons for the proposed supersession. In the
context of the protection conferred on public servants by articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution it was incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated
reasons in a manner which would disclose how the record of each officer
superseded stood in relation to the records of others who were to be preferred.
This is the only visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness
in making selections. Had that been done it would have been possible to
correlate facts on service records considered by the Selection Committee with
the conclusions reached. [358 C] 354 Reasons which are the links between the
materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions
disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision, They
should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions
reached.
[358 E] Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor
& Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797; applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 2173 of 1970.
From the judgment and order dated 29th
October, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 89 of
1967.
Gyan Chand Mathur and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for
the Appellant.
D.P. Mohanty and R.A. Shroff for Respondent
No. 1.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL J. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing
with costs a petition filed by the present appellant under article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging his demotion from the post of Superintendent
of Police to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
2. The facts giving rise to the dispute
between the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh are now admitted on all
hands and may be briefly stated. Prior to 13th April 1960 the appellant was a
member of the Madhya Pradesh State Police Service and was working as a Deputy
Superintendent of Police. On that date a meeting of the Committee set up in
accordance with regulation 3 of the India Police Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter called the Regulations) was held, and
therein was prepared a list of such members of the State Police Service as were
eligible and suitable for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The said
Committee is popularly known as the "Selection Committee" and will be
so referred to hereinafter. The list was approved by the Union Public Service
Commission and thus became the Select List as envisaged in regulation 7 of the
Regulations. The appellant was accordingly promoted to the Indian Police
Service and was posted as a Superintendent of Police which position he held
till the impugned reversion effected by an order dated 11th September, 1964.
The reason for that reversion was that on the 18th of 355 September 1963 the
Selection Committee reviewed the Select List, A purporting to act in accordance
with regulation 5 of the Regulations and recommended that the appellant and 27
others be superseded The sole ground for the supersession was thus stated by
the Selection Committee:
"The Committee consider that, on an
overall assessment, the records of these officers are not such as to justify their
appointment to the Indian Police Service at this stage."
3. The reversion of the appellant was
challenged before the High Court with the contention inter alia that the ground
set out by the Selection Committee in that behalf did not specify any reason,
good, bad or indifferent, for his supersession, that under regulation 5 of the
Regulations it was duty of the Selection Committee to record reasons and that
not having been done the review of the Select List made on the 18th of
September, 1963 was clearly in contravention of the Regulations and, therefore,
as good as non-est. The contention was turned down by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court, who dismissed the appellant's petition, with the following
observations:
"The contention of learned counsel for
the applicant that the giving of reasons under sub- regulation (5) of
regulation 5 for superseding an officer makes the order justiciable, does not
appeal to us. It is not for the Court to see whether the reasons given by the
Committee are sufficient or not, but it is for the State Government and the
Central Public Service Commission to see the sufficiency of the reasons."
The contention thus rejected has been reiterated before us.
4. Regulations 5 and 7 of the Regulations may
be reproduced here with advantage:
"5. Preparation of a list of suitable
officers.
(1) The Committee shall prepare a list of
such members of the State Police Service as satisfy the condition specified in
regulation 4 and as are held by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to
the Service.
356 (2) The selection for inclusion in such
list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to
seniority.
(3) The names of the officers included in the
list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the State Police Service;
Provided that any junior officer who in the
opinion of the Committee is of exceptional merit and suitability may be
assigned a place in the list higher than that of officers senior to him.
(4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed
and revised every year.
(5) If in the process of selection, review or
revision it is proposed to supersede any members of the State Police Service,
the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession." 7.
Select List.
(1) The Commission shall consider the list
prepared by the Committee along with the other documents received from the
State Government and, unless it considers any change necessary, approve the
list.
(2) If the Commission consider it necessary
to make any changes in the list received from the State Government, the
Commission shall inform the State Government of the changes proposed and after
taking into account the comments, if any, of the State Government, may approve
the list finally with such modification, if any, as may, in its opinion, be
just and proper.
(3) The list as finally approved by the
Commission shall form the Select List of the members of the State Police
Service.
(4) The Select List shall ordinarily be in
force until it is reviewed or revised in accordance with sub- regulation (4) of
regulation 5:
356 Provided that in the event of a grave
lapse in the conduct or performance of duties on the part of any member of the
State Police Service included in the Select List, a special review of the
Select List may be made at any time at the instance of the State Government and
the Commission may. if it so thinks fit, remove the name of such member of the
State Police Service from the Select List." It is not disputed that a
Select List may be reviewed as stated in sub-regulation (4) of regulation 7
read with sub-regulation (5) of regulation 5. So all that has to be determined
is whether the Selection Committee was bound to give reasons for the
supersession of the appellant and whether the note recorded by it which sets
out the ground for supersession does give any reason at all.
The matter is really covered by a decision of
this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others. In that case also
the ground set out by the Selection Committee for the proposed supersession
was:
"On an overall assessment, the records
of these officers are not such as to justify their appointment to the Indian
Administrative Service/Indian Police Service at this stage in preference to
those selected." Except for the words "in preference to those
selected" the ground just above set out is identical with the ground given
by the Selection Committee in the case of the appellant. Rejecting this ground
as being no statement of reasons within the meaning of sub-regulation (5) of
regulation 5, Mathew, J., speaking for the Court, observed:
"We next turn to the provisions of
Regulation 5 (5) imposing a mandatory duty upon the Selection Committee to
record "its reasons for proposed supersession". We find considerable
force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the
"rubber-stamp" reason given mechanically for the supersession of each
officer does not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession."
358 the most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description
of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion. This apology for reasons to
be recorded does not go beyond indicating a conclusion in each case that the
record of the officer concerned is not such as to justify his appointment
"at this stage in preference to those selected".
"In the context of the effect upon the
rights of aggrieved persons, as members of a public service who are entitled to
just and reasonable treatment, by reason of protections conferred upon them by
articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which are available to them throughout
their service, it was incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated
reasons in a manner which would disclose how the record of each officer
superseded stood in relation to records of others who were to be preferred,
particularly as this is practically the only remaining visible safeguard
against possible injustice and arbitrariness in making selections. If that had
been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection
Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are
the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the
actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter
for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They
should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions
reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be
manifestly just and reasonable. We think that it is not enough to say that
preference should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through
by the Selection Committee.
This is all that the supposed statement of
reasons amounts to. We, therefore, think that the mandatory provisions of
Regulation 5 (5) were not complied with." With respect we fully agree and
hold that the Select List prepared in accordance with the recommendations of
the Selection Committee made in its meeting held on the 18th of September 1963
contravened the mandate in sub-regulation 5 of regulation 5.
5. In the result we accept the appeal, set
aside the impugned judgment and quash the Select List just above mentioned in
so far 359 as it relates to the appellant, as also the order of his reversion.
He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits even though he has since
retired from service. In the circumstances of the case, however, we leave the
parties to bear their respective costs.
P.B.R. Appeal allowed.
Back
