Whether “DPC” is required to be guided merely by the overall grading or can it make its own assessment on the basis of the entries/“remarks in the ACRs “and other relevant material

DPC enjoys full discretion to devise its own methods and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates. It has been understood by the Hon’ble Apex court in plethora of cases that DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading that may be recorded in the confidential report but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs as it has been noticed that some times over all grading in the ACRs may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes.

The argument that ACRs of the petitioner was downgraded by the DPC has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner by depriving the benefits of superior ACR cannot be accepted as tenable in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. V. Thimmaih’s , ((2008) 2 SCC 119), S.K.Goel (2007(14) SCC 641), K.Rajaiah’s ((2005) 10 SCC 15)) in which it has been held and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that though the Selection Committee normally abides by the assessment made by the reporting and reviewing authority, the Selection Committee is not powerless to make its own assessment. It makes its own overall relative assessment of the confidential reports of all the officers and after comparative assessment, the best candidate is selected. The classification made by the State authorities is not binding on the Committee and the Committee for good reasons can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded.

Further, normally, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority of a selection by a DPC unless except on the ground of malafide or serious infraction of statutory rules. (Also read 2014(3) NEJ 364 Ph.Jilasana Sharma vs. State of Manipur And Ors)

In Union of India & Anr. – Appellants Vs. S.K. Goel & Ors 2007(14) SCC 641 (Para 28,29,30,31)

‘’28 …DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the ACRs but to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in ACRs. The DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, in our opinion, is liable to be set aside.

31 …We hold that the DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the interference by the High Court is not called for.’’

M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119, the Court stated:

“16. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, courts normally do not sit as a court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the Tribunal can be given this power to constitute an independent Selection Committee over the statutory Selection Committee. The guidelines have already been given by the Commission as to how ACRs to be assessed and how the marking has to be made. These guidelines take care of the proper scrutiny and not only by the Selection Committee but also the views of the State Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central Government for appointment. There also it is not binding on the Central Government to appoint all the persons as recommended and the Central Government can withhold the appointment of some persons so mentioned in the select list for reasons recorded. Therefore, if the assessment of ACRs in respect of Shri S. Daya Shankar and Shri R. Ramapriya should have been made as “outstanding” or “very good” it is within the domain of the Selection Committee and we cannot sit as a court of appeal to assess whether Shri R. Ramapriya has been rightly assessed or Shri Daya Shankar has been wrongly assessed. The overall assessment of ACRs of both the officers were taken; one was found to be “outstanding” and the second one was found to be “very good”. This assessment cannot be made subject of court’s or Tribunal’s scrutiny unless actuated by mala fide.”

Anil Katiyar v. Union of India & Ors: (1997) 1 SCC 280, it has been submitted that grading given by the DPC different from that given in the ACR cannot be subjected to judicial review. Thus, “Outstanding” recorded in the ACR which has been graded as “Very Good” by the DPC cannot be interfered with having regard to the confidential procedure followed by the DPC.

Nutan Arvind v. Union of India & Ors: (1996) 2 SCC 488, it has been submitted that when a high level committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates and assessed the grading, the Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as if it is an appellate authority. When such assessment had been made, the Court would also not go into question as to whether any officer was competent to review or record the confidential report.

In the case of Ramanand Prasad Singh & another v. Union of India & others (1996) 4 SCC 64, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“14………The Committee applies its mind to the service records and makes its own assessment of the service records of the candidates marking them as outstanding, very good. good and so on. The Selection Committee does not necessarily adopt the same grading which is given by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer in respect of each of the candidates. In fact the Selection Committee makes an overall relative assessment of the confidential report dossiers of the officers in the zone of consideration. It thus does not evaluate the confidential report dossier of an individual in isolation. It is after this comparative assessment that the best candidates are put in the Select List……..”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. K. Rajaiah (2005) 10 SCC 15, has held that the power to classify as ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’ and ‘unfit’ is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government, but for good reasons, the Selection committee can evolve its own classification which may be variance with the gradation given in the ACRs.