I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23"--3 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HoN'r3Li~: MR. JUSTICE N KUMA_I:;~._,
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI A A ',
wp No.1037'3/2003 c/w wp Nom,3__1844-/V2O03':v{S"=- can " "
W'.P 'No.10373/2003
BEIWEEN
Abdul Bari Nawab, IAS,
S/o.Iate Abdul Sattar, _e .
Aged about 52 years, '
Awaiting posting, _
Department of Personneiiti. . "
Administrative Refoérrris, " 'V __
Government of Kar1a.at»ai1§gi, A
Vidhana Soudl'1'a';'t' - T. "P. '-
Banga1ore--56C!v OO__1.. V' __ « I .. Petitioner
{By Sri P S Rajagopai. N Prasarma, Adv.)
AND: A " A '
I. [,§:n1e1path,yi KALSK' *****
fiNo.*1i2e §*"i Cross. C R Layout,
'Phase, Sarakki,
.U11isdCE:omfIi5ng '§§i1'"'roiri»5§:=d,e1~r;¥;" this day, KUMAR
J passed the foflov-,ri'i:1g: * ' ~
f'petition::..areA.fi1ed challenging the order
of the ' Ceiktrai'aAdrninist.rative Tribunal {for short
1u'T;'ibtma1"}. 'which--V--V'[ia$3 reviewed the selection made for
'_t:he_.pa.nhe1 for the posi: of [AS and remanded
{:1*1e"ma,€teVrVback to review the same.
l --.eonseq5:;1eI'i'tial benefits.
fii'st.vll_jg;§rou11d Llrged in the proceedings before
the applicant for the year 19924992 to 1994~
A are very good and he expected outstanding ACR
(1
2. The applicant in O.A.No.371/2001. Sn' K S
Umapathy, KAS Offieer challenged the selection and
appointment of respondent Nos/1 [petitioner hereipnlp to
14 therein made in the selection
held on 4″‘ and 51″ December, 2000. He .o
the appointment and selection
5 in OA No.lO27/ 2001 Invade
In both these applications, the
respondents No.1 to of the
applicant for promotionltoi to select and
appoirvitlllhiriixto thlewdate of appointment of
responldentsl l’~.iio.¢i_ljV’V.to~~._:A’l’-4V~” in OA No.37}/2001 and
respondentls l$lo;4.fand OA No. 1027/ 2001 and for all
that the Annual Confidential Reports
7
for the years E996-97 to 199899 and that the only
performance report which was not graded properly was
199596 and hence respondent Nos} and 2 were__ not
justified in eiiminating him from selection tOH..lAv:Sl”.’l”i.(3
second contention is that since promotion tl’1:e.,:lAlS»
by selection, the respondents ot:.’ght”t’o have
the suitability by applying same ya_rdsticks.y5tith
and reasonableness and also~vs.:,\.V2:l\’fitho1,itr’a_n’y. that it
the selections made ai*es_eor}=tlra1*y§_: prilneiplle.
4. The Tribunal on co-nlsideravtionl”ofriyal contentions
held ‘applicant. falls under the
category “rare hand” eicceptional circumstances. The
overall’ “asseslsr11en_t___of very good given to Abdul Bari
‘Nlawai:x,’petitivo_ner herein, and grading of only good to
respondent herein, does not reflect the
true .afid fair assessment of the merits of these two
9’ officials and the applicant was entitled to fair treatment
in the matter of Consideration for promotion. In their
.-,,…_AdVmi’tteC11y; .._1’10 c;Lse’0or bias or malafide is pleaded or
that ground, the selection is not
t;he=gi*0und of some procedural irreguiarities. In this
‘ifeg–;_.r’d. the law is well settled that the T ribtmal could
-~-F1V()t. interfere with the seIeCti()11. Therefore. the
:4
assessment, the selection made by the selection
committee for the panel year 1998 has not been done in
a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, the Tribunal
declined to consider the selection for the sutiserjnueiqyt,
year 1999 and 2000 and eonsequentiai
made. Therefore. the ‘1’ribuna}.-J’rQ.;1Jai”1ded;.”
back to review the selection
1998 in the light of its OBS-é’:.}V:;’Kl’ra>..t:/i()’.I;iS3..V
order. the petitiorlersin petitiohshzontend
that the scope of interie_rehce’ is Very
ihterfere with only on two
grounds V that’ if”A:_th.9e’–~..se%.eeti0n process violates any
statutory ]t?u1esw.o’r it vitiated, because of malafide.
cha.1_1en_gedV9;.i’.»’ ;l’herefore, the seiection has to be set: aside
9
petitioners submit that the inipugned order requires to
be set aside.
5. The law on the point is very well settled. T he-‘-Apex
Court. in the case of Badrinath -vs– Goverr1″rnen:”tri.of
Tamil Nadu reported in 2000 SC 3243 dealing
scope of judicial review of selection
pa:rasw4O and 41 as follows: i
“40. Unless there isl”‘~,a”‘l.strong_ ‘case ljfor
applying the Wednesbu_ry».,doctrine’*or_ there
are rnala fides, Courts”land–“£’ribuIials cannot
interfere with Vras.sess{m:en’ts’i ._”:nade by
Departmental Prom_otior=.i .-‘Co’rrfirr__1.i;~ttee in
regard to merit offitnless for promotion. But
in rare;”c’a;ses. if the asses”sm_er1t is either
proved to ..:mal’a,_ “ride or is found based on
inadmissible ‘or’ .ti._lr;relevant or insignificant
A. -and t.rivia’l~ material and if an attitude of
.»’.3-aignoring o’r.n_ot.,giving weight to the positive
y a5s”pee’ts of one’s career is strongly displayed,
or if ‘t.’r_ie ._i_nfereI1ces drawn are such that no
. l1’easo’1’1a’ole person can reach such
. “‘vi’cont’:he}=decision ~»~ then the powers of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution
arelnot foreclosed.
.541. While the Courts are to be extremely
careful in exercising the power of judicial
review in dealing with assessment made by
it}
Departme11t.al Promotion Comrnittees, t.he
executive is also to bear in mind that, in
exceptional cases, the assessment of merit
made by them is liable to be scrutinized by
Courts, within the narrow Wednesbury,_
principles or on the ground of mala fidesfz
The judicial power remains but its use4j”is”‘~«.V”‘*
restricted to rare and exceptional sitt1at’i’onfs~..___C’ C’
We are making these remarks so t4hat.;CoL1rt.s’s.”
or ‘}.’ribu11als may not by quoting thi.s-..c_awsVe”a:S .
an easy precedent M.-*””i~n.terf_ereM with-[3
assessment of merit in et{ery:._ca}jse’.:_ 1
and Tribunals cannot sit ‘-as app-el.la«.te V
authorities nor substitute their to
the View of Depa.rt”mentaiv._ ‘P.rovrnotion
Committee. Undue in.t_erfVerenc’c,_ by the
Courts or Tribuziaals will re:-:ul’t._in paralyzing
recomrriendationsf _ _ Departmental
Committees and p;rorn~oi°ions,Cl”– case on
hand canbe a precedent.o.nly’in’rai*e cases.”
6. in of the aforesaid law, the
‘I’r1bunall”h_as paras–4 to 6 of the impugned
order the so l’cAal1e__d___ir1*egularities 111 the selection. it is
‘r.1o’t.. Vpossirb’l.e°’to accept that. it is one of those rarest of
mref cases where interference is called for by the
TribL:.nal:_. .l4Virtually the Tribunal has looked into the
and the entries for the particular year in
compliance with the Rules made therein. All that it can
find is that i3i1st’ea.d of grading the appiicant E’§S’.._gV(:’I’}/’
good, he has been graded as good and
fauit with. It cannot be a ground as iaid
Apex Court in its aforesaid judvgfAne11t&_
the assessment made by the
The exercise of power by the
aforesaid judgment and”‘dcodntrary to
law. In that View of by the
Tribunal Car}.~IICA~V¥%.Vg:g1be we pass the
following: d A 3 dd
The wrh: The impugned
order is hereby
-sdg ….. Sd/H
JUDGE
Sdfw
3UDg§