The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated in various cases that the decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds by the process of judicial review, these limited grounds are:
1. Illegality or gross violation,
2. When the assessment is totally against the record
3. Patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or
4. Patent material irregularity in its procedure vitiating the selection, or
5. Proved mala fides affecting the selection.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. L.P. Tiwari (2006) 12 SCC 317, has held that it is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with the courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose.
In the case of Union of India & ors v. S.P. Nayyar, (2014) 14 SCC 370, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:
“11. It is settled that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own, on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee.
12. The selection to the post of Addl. DIG is based on merit-cum-suitability which is to be adjudged on the basis of ACRs of different candidates. The merit position can be adjudged by the Selection Committee on appreciation of their Character Roll. In absence of the Character roll of other candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion, it is not open to the High Court to assess the merit of one individual who moves before the High Court, to give a finding whether he comes within the zone of promotion or fit for promotion.”
The Supreme Court held in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 434:
“9. it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.”
In Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and others AIR 1988 SC 1069, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“5………How to categorize in the light of the relevant records and what norms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the functions of the Selection Committee. The jurisdiction to make the selection is vested in the Selection Committee……..”
In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc, AIR 1990 SC 434, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“9……..It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject……..”
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shrikant Chapekar, JT 1992 (5) SC 638, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“4…The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in reaching the conclusion that the remarks were vague and of a general nature. In any case, the Tribunal ‘out stepped its jurisdiction in reaching the conclusion that the adverse remarks were not sufficient to deny the respondent his promotion to the post of Deputy Director. It is not the function of the Tribunal to assess the service record of a Government servant and order his promotion on that basis. It is for the DPC to evaluate the same and make recommendations based on such evaluation. This Court has repeatedly held that in a case where the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that a person was considered for promotion or the consideration was illegal, then the only direction which can be given is to reconsider his case in accordance with law. It is not within the competence of the Tribunal, in the fact of the present case, to have ordered deemed promotion of the respondent.”
The recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory Rules. The Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the Court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the appellants has taken us through various following decisions of this Court.
1. 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 147 : AIR 2003 SC 3044 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
2. 1993(3) SCT 111 : (1993)3 SCC 319 P.M. Bayas v. Union of India & Ors.
3. (1985)4 SCC 417 Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc.
4. (1981)1 SCC 722 Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.
5. 2007(2) SCT 187 : 2007(1) RAJ 926 : 2007(3) SCALE 219 Union Public Service Commission v. S. Thiagarajan & Ors.
6. (1976)3 SCC 585, Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow & Ors.
7. (1980)2 SCC 355 Mrs. Kunda S.Kadam v. Dr. K.K. Soman & Ors.
8. 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 512 : (2002)1 SCC 749 Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & Anr. v. R.K. Sharma & Ors.
9. 1998(1) SCT 631 : (1998)3 SCC 694 Union of India & Anr. v. N. Chandrasekharan & Ors.
10. 2004(2) SCT 680 : (2004)6 SCC 786 Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K & Ors.
11. 2006(3) SCT 146 : (2006)6 SCC 395 K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala Ors.
LawUmbrella 