PETITIONER:
UMA CHARAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1981
BENCH:
KOSHAL, A.D.
BENCH:
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each officer superseded stood in relation to the records of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.
JUDGMENT:
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. Th
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 over all 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.
360