Holding

The IAS Selection Committee’s independent assessment, endorsed by the UPSC, is conclusive and a senior officer cannot claim a right to inclusion in the IAS Select List, especially when the statutory age bar applies.

Summary

Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of the Punjab Provincial Civil Service, filed a writ petition under Article 32 claiming that, despite a good service record, he was denied a certificate of integrity and inclusion in the IAS Select List due to two adverse remarks. The Supreme Court noted that the IAS Selection Committee is an independent body whose recommendations, once approved by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), are final. The Committee, after a special meeting ordered by the Court, found the petitioner unsuitable, and the UPSC concurred. Additionally, the petitioner, being 55 years old, fell foul of the statutory age limit for inclusion. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had no right to be placed on the Select List and dismissed the petition without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be included in the IAS Select List as a matter of right.
Whether the adverse remarks and denial of a certificate of integrity justify exclusion from the Select List.
Whether the age limit bars the petitioner’s inclusion in the Select List.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. 1955

Subjects

IAS selectioncertificate of integrityage limitwrit petitionArticle 32promotion by seniority

Judgment

A 9o4
GURDAYAL SlNGH FIJI
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
B October 14, 1981

[ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.]

Constitution o.f India 1950, Article 32 and Indian Administrative Service
c (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955-Meniber of State Civil Ser1·ice
Cadre-Adverse remarks i'n confidential roll-Certificate of intergity not granted-
I.A.S. Select List-Claim for inclusion-Whether niaintainable.

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 n1ost 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
D adverse remarks made against him were ma/a fide and unjustified and the refusal
to grant him a certificate of integrity and to include his name in the I.A.S.
Select List w_as wrongful and illegal.
•
Dismissing the writ petition,

HELD : L 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 petitiow
F ner to be· suitable to be included in the Select List and the Union Public Service
Commission has agreed with the recommendation of the Sele.;tion Committee.
The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the Select List must, therefore,
fail. [906 E]

2. The petitioner is now 55 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]
G
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ; Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1980.

(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)

H Petitioner in person
Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No. l.
GURDAYAL SINGH V. PUNJAB (A.N. Sen, J.) 905

P.A. Francis, N. Nettar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent A
No. 15.

Jitendra Sharma and P. Gour for Respondents Nos. 25-31,
33-38, 41-43, 46·48 and 51·55.

Respondent No. 58 in person. B
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.
c
The main grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition
appears to be against the non ·inclusion of his nan:e in the LA.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 D
the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certi-
ficate of integrity has not been given to him. The Petitioner sub-
mits 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. E

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. F
• Jn view of the grievance made by the Petitioner as to non-inclu-
sion of his name in the Select List, this Court by an order(') passed
;;i on 9.3.1979 directed the I. A. S. Selection Committee to hold a
special ineeting to consider the question of inclusion of the
name of tl:e Petitio11er in the Select List. Pursuant to the order G
passed by this Court, I.A.S. Selection Committee held a speci
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 ff
(I) (1979] 3 S.C.R. ,18.
906 SUPREME COURT RllPOJlTS (1982] I S.C.R.

A f.A.S. Selection Committee further require to be approved by the
Union Public Service Commission. The decision taken by the l.A.S.
Selection Committee at the meeting held on 21.7.1979 pursuant to
the order of this Court refusing to include the Petitioner jn the
Select List was approved by the Union Public Service Commission
which agreed with the recommendation. An affidavit has also been
B 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
c there is nothing on record to pursuade us to hold that the decision
of the Selection Committee was not properly arrived at on consi-
deration 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 Selec-
D tion Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of suita-
bility 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
E Service Con.mission 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
F now be considered. The Petitioner is now 55 years of age and the
age bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List debars the Peti-
tioner 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.
G
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.