Gurdayal Singh Fiji Vs. The State of
Punjab & Ors [1981] INSC 177
(14 October 1981)
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH
(J) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 2015 1982 SCR (1) 904 1981
SCC (4) 419 1981 SCALE (1)1553
CITATOR INFO :
D 1987 SC 593 (18)
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950, Article 32 and
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955-Member
of State Civil Service Cadre Adverse remarks in confidential roll-Certificate
of integrity not granted- I.A.S. Select List-Claim for inclusion-Whether
maintainable.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner, a member of the State
Provincial Civil Service, in his writ petition to this Court contended that he
was one of the senior most persons in the service, with a consistently good
record, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certificate of
integrity had not been given to him, and that the adverse remarks made against
him were mala fide and unjustified and the refusal to grant him a certificate of
integrity and to include his name in the l.A.S. Select List was wrongful and
illegal.
Dismissing the writ petition,
HELD :1. The I.A.S. Selection Committee which
prepares the Select List is an independent body, The petitioner cannot claim to
be included in the Select List as a matter of right. The Select List is
prepared by the Selection Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis
of the suitability of the officer concerned and the recommendations made by the
Selection Committee have to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission.
[906 C-D] In the instant case the Selection Committee has not considered the
petitioner to be suitable to be included in the Select List and the Union
Public Service Commission has agreed with the recommendation of the Selection
Committee.The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the Select List must,
therefore, fail. [906 E]
2. The petitioner is now SS years of age and
the age bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List deprives the
petitioner from being included in the Select List. [906 F]
ORlGlNAL JURlSDlCTlON: Writ Petition No. 4533
of 1980.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of
India) Petitioner in person Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No.
1.
905 P.A. Francis, N. Netlar and R.N. Poddar
for Respondent A No. 15.
Jitendra Sharma and P. Caur for Respondents
Nos. 25-31, 33-38, 41-43, 46-48 and 51-55.
Respondent No. 58 in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of the Punjab Provincial
Civil Service, has presented this writ petition in person and he has argued his
own case in person.
The main grievance of the Petitioner in this
writ petition appears to be against the non-inclusion of his name in the l.A.S.
Select List.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is
one of the senior-most persons in the service with a consistently good record
of service on the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers,
certificate of integrity has not been given to him. The Petitioner submits that
the adverse remarks made against him were mala fide and unjustified and the
refusal to grant him a certificate of integrity and not to include his name in
the I.A.S. Select List is wrongful and illegal.
As this writ petition may be disposed of on a
short point, it does not become necessary for us to set out at length the
various facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has taken us
through the records and the various documents filed in support of his case made
in the writ petition.
In view of the grievance made by the
Petitioner as to non-inclusion of his name in the Select List, this Court by an
order(l) passed on 9.3.1979 directed the I. A. S. Selection Committee to hold a
special meeting to consider the question of inclusion of the name of the
Petitioner in the Select List. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
I.A.S. Selection Committee held a special meeting on the 21.7.1979 and the
Selection Committee found the Petitioner to be unsuitable for inclusion in the
Select List. It may be noted that the I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares
the Select List is an independent body and recommendations of the 906 I.A.S.
Selection Committee further require to be approved by the Union Public Service
Commission. The decision taken by the I A.S. Selection Committee at the meeting
held on 21.7.1979 pursuant to the order of this Court refusing to include the
Petitioner in the Select List was approved by the Union Public Service
Commission which agreed with the recommendation. An affidavit has also been
filed by Shri D.C. Mishra, Director, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
The averments made in this affidavit go to
establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List was
properly considered by the Selection Committee on merits As we have earlier
noticed, the Selection Committee is an independent body and there is nothing on
record to pursuade us to hold that the decision of the Selection Committee was
not properly arrived at on consideration of the merits of the case and was, in
any way, otherwise motivated. The Petitioner cannot claim to be included in the
Select List as a matter of right. The Select List is prepared by the Selection
Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of suitability of the
officer concerned and recommendations made by the Selection Committee have to
be approved by the Union Public service Commission.
As the Selection Committee has not considered
the Petitioner to be suitable to be included in Select List and the Union
Public Service Commission has agreed with the recommendation of the Selection
Committee, the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the select List must
fail.
There is another aspect of the matter which
goes to establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select
List cannot now be considered. The Petitioner is now SS years of age and the
age bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List debars the Petitioner
from being included in the Select List. In the result this petition fails and
is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
Back