Holding

When promotion to the IAS is made on merit alone, senior officers have no legal right to promotion and the Selection Committee is not statutorily required to record reasons for supersession, rendering the challenged Select Lists valid.

Summary

Three officers of the Punjab State Civil Service claimed that they were superseded in the 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 IAS promotion Select Lists because junior officers were included while they were omitted, and that the Selection Committee failed to record reasons for supersession, violating Articles 14 and 16 and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework governing promotion – the All India Services Act, 1951, the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – and the effect of the 1977 amendment which removed the mandatory requirement to record reasons for supersession. The Court held that when promotion is based solely on merit, senior officers have no legal right to promotion and the Committee is not obligated to record reasons for supersession under the amended regulations. Consequently, the non‑recording of reasons and the delayed forwarding of comments by the State Government did not vitiate the Select Lists. The Court also rejected claims of bias in the composition of the Selection Committee and found the regulations consistent with Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules. All the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

The validity of the IAS promotion Select Lists for 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 on the ground that senior officers were superseded without recorded reasons.
Whether the amended Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 removed the mandatory duty to record reasons for supersession.
Whether non‑compliance with Regulation 6(iii) (failure to forward reasons to the UPSC) vitiated the Select Lists.
Whether principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, apply to the selection process.
Whether the composition of the Selection Committee, specifically the participation of Shri J.C. Puri, rendered the process ultra vires or biased.
Whether the promotion regulations are ultra vires of Rule 8 of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.

Legislation cited

All India Services Act, 1951s. s.3
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 16
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955s. Regulation 3, s. Regulation 5(4), s. Regulation 5(5), s. Regulation 6(iii), s. Regulation 7, s. Regulation 8, s. Regulation 9
Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954s. Rule 4, s. Rule 6, s. Rule 8

Subjects

PromotionIndian Administrative ServiceMerit vs SeniorityNatural JusticeArticle 14Article 16Selection CommitteeAdministrative LawUltra ViresRegulatory Amendment

Judgment

R.S DASS ETC. ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,

DECEMBER 11, 1986

[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JL] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 14 and 16-Members of State
Civil Service (Executive)-Promotion to Indian Admfnistrative
Service-Selection-Merit sole ,basis-Seniority-Whether confers any
legal right on a Government servant for promotion-Whether such right
protected by Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers considered on merit in C
:>·· an .objective manner-Non-selection of senior&--Whether amounts to
supersession-Whether Selection CommJltee required to record reasons
fo; non-selection of seniors-Whether non_recording of reasons under
amended Regulation 5(4) and (5) of /AS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations 1955 violative of Arts. 14 and_l6.
D
Natural Justice-Civil Service-Promotion-Selection on Merit
a/one-Eligible officers considered on merit in an objective manner-
Seniors not selected-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant-Whether ·opportunity required to be given to the
superseded officer for making representation-Rules of natural justice--
Application of-Depends upon· the setting and the background of statu- E
tory provisions, nature of the right affected and the consequences which
may entail.

Civil Service-Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulation, 1955 Regulations 3, 5(4), (5) .& (7), 6 and 8.
and Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954---Rules 4 F
and 8(i}-Members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive)-
Promotion to Indian Administrative Service-Selection-Merit alone to
be considered-Seniority-Whether confers any legal right on a
Government Servant for Promotion-Whether such right protected by
Arts. 14 and 16-Eligible officers to be considered in an .objective
manner-Non-selection of seniors-Whether amounts to superses- G
sion-Whether Selection Committee/State Government required to give
reasons for non-selectjon of seniors~ Non-recording of reasons for
supersession-Select List-Validity of-Whether Promotion Regula-
tions 3, 5 and 7 ultra vir.es Recruitment Rule 8(1).

Services-Categorisation of eligible officers as 'Outstanding'; H

527
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

A 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Unfit' for pwposes of Promotion-Basis of
categorisation should be objective and not merely subjective evalua-
tion-Service record-Character roll entries-Importance of.

AdminiStrative action-Power-Vested in a high authority-
Whether sufficient safeguard against arbitrariness and misuse of
B power-Presumption-Whether power would be exercised reasona-
bly-Judicial.review-Scope- of Delay in forwarding comments to
Public Service Commission by State Government-Whether constitutes
malafides.

The Central Government under s. 3 of the All India Services Act,
C 1951 framed Indian Administrative Serl'ice (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.
According to Rule 4 recruitment to the Indian Admioistrative Service is
made by: (i) direct recruitment throug!ll competitive examination; (ii)
promotion ofsubstantive members of the State Civil Service (Executive)
and (iii) selection from amongst persons holding posts in substantive
capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, who may not be
D members of the. State Civil Service. Under Rule 8(1) the Central
Governmen_t framed the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 laying down procedure for selection
for appointment to the service by promotion. Regulation 3 provides for
the Constitution of' a Selection Committiee. Regulation 5 provides that
the Committee shall prepare the list of imch members of the State Civil
E Service found suitable for promotion to the service on an over all rela-
tive assessments of the service. The State Government shall forward
this list to the Union Public Service Commission along with the records
of the selected members as well as of tl1ose proposed to be superseded
together with the Observations Of the S·tate Government. OD tJlle recom-
mendation of the Committee· for com;ideration !Jf the Union Public
F Service Commission and the list so approved shall form the Select List
of the members of State Civil Service and shall be io force until a fresh
list is prepared and approved for the sul>Sequent year. Regulation 8 lays
down that the appointment shall be made by the Central Government
on the recommendations of the State Government in the order in which
the names of members of the State Ci vii Service appear in the Select
G List. In the process of preparing the Select List if the seniors are not
found suitable for promotion and their names in the Select List are not
included and, if junior officers are found suitable for the inclusion of x
the names in the Select List, the seniors stand superseded, as the selec-
tion is made on merit and not on the ba' is of seniority.

·H Three members of the Punjab Sll1<te Civil Service (Executive) filed
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA 529

-separate petitions under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the Select A
List of 1978 for promotion to the I.A.S. alleging: (i) that they were
eligible for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, but their
names were not included in the Select List while names of officers
Junior to them were included, thereby superseding them in an arbi-
trary manner without recording any reasons; (ii) that the mandatory
8
provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were violated as the
service records of eligible State Officers including the petitioners bad
not been forwarded to the Union Publi_c Service Commission; (iii) that
amendment made in Regulation 5 deleting the provision which re-
quired reasons to be recorded for the supersession of a State Officer,
· was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; (iv) that the RegulatiO!lS were C
ultra vires being inconsistent with the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954; (v) that .one officer bad earned adverse
remarks and yet be was selected; (vi) that important material relating to
the petitioners' service including certificate and letters of recommenda-
tions were not considered by the Selection Committee.
D
A Division Bench of the High Court by a Common Judgement in
Baldev Kapoor's caSe [(1980) 2 SLR 309] dismissed all the petitions hold-
ing that the Select List prepared for the year 1978 did not suffer from
any legal infirmity. During the pendency of these. petitions Select List
for the year 1979 was also prepared and the name ofone oftbe petition-
E
ers was not included in that list also. Another writ petition challenging
that Select List was also filed on the same grounds and dismissed.

In similar Writ Petitions, the Full Bench of the High Court to
whom the matter was referred for .consideration on the question as to
whether the Select List of 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regu-
F
lation 6(iii) inasmuch as reasons for supei:session al senior officers were
not forwarded to the Commission, held that the decmon of the Supreme
Court in Chothia's case [1978) 3 SCR 652] did not affect the position and
the Division Bench's decision in Baldev Kapoor's case (supra) correctly
laid down the law.
G
Appeals were filed in this Court and during their pendency 15
other officers filed petitions-under Art. 32 challenging the validitY of
Select Lists for the years 1979 and 1980. Some other officers filed simi-
lar petitions challenging the validity of Select Lists prepared for the
year 1983. Select Lists for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 were
challenged almost on similar grounds. H

(
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

In the present appeals and petitio11s, on behalf of the appellants
A
and petitioners it was contended: (1) thai: the Select Lists of 1978, 1979,
1980 and 1983 were vitiated as tbe Selection Committee did not record
any reasons in superseding the appellants/petitioners while excluding
their names and including the names of junior officers in the Select
Lists; (2) that the amendment of the Regulation 5(7) was violative of
B Articles 14 and l 6 as it conferred ungoided power on the Selection
Committee to supersede senior officers; (.I) that the Select Ust prepared
for the year 1978 was vitiated for non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) as
reasons recorded by the Selection Comm:itee were not forwarded by the
State Government to the Commission along with record of officers pro-
posed to be superseded; (4) that even if under the Regulations no
C reasons wer.e necessary to be recorded, principles of Natural Justice
and fair play required that reasons should have been recorded; (5) that
the Select Lists prepared for the years l •ns and 1979 were vitiated on
account of unauthorised participation of ,Sbri I.C. Puri as a Member of
the Selection Committee; (6) that the Re~:ulation 3 and 5 of the Promo-
tion Regulations were violative of Rule !I( I) of the Recruitment Rules
D inasmuch as the Promotion Regulations impinge upon the State
Government's power to make recommendations for appointment to the
service; (7) that the State Government deliberately delayed its com-
ments on the Select List prepared for 19110 to the Public Service Com-
mission with a view to give undue advantage to the officers included in
the 1979 list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
E
Dismissing the Appeals and Writ Pel itions,

HELD: By the Court

(Mukharji & K.N. Singh, JJ.)
F
Having regard to the legislative history and the purpose and the
object which was sought to be achieved by the amendments there could
be no mandatory legal obligation on the Committee to record reasons.
Regulation 6(iii) merely required the State Govt. to forward reasons if
recorded for supersession of the officers lo the Commission, b.;t if no
G reasons were recorded the State Government was under no legal obllp-
tion to forward the same to the Commission and its non-compliance did
not vitiate the Select List. The entire s•rstem of selection has been
changed on account of amendment In the feliutations. [552F-G; D-E]

Gurdayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1981] l SCR 904,
H followed.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v, UNION OF INDIA 531

~x Union of India v. Chothia (H.P.) & Ors. etc. etc.,[1978] 3 SCR A
652 and Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] l SCR
797, distinguished •
•
P. C. Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] ! SLR and J.S.
Chopra's case [1980] 2 ILR Punj. 477, approved. Per K.N. Singh, J.
B
I. I Regulation 5(5) of the Indian Administ~ative Service
(Appointment by Promotio11) Regulations, 1955 provided that if in the
process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any
member of the State Civil/Police Service the Selection committee shall
record its reasons for the proposed supersession. Regulation 5 was,
however, amended by Notification dated 3.1.1977. [S45G] C

1.2 The amended provisions of Regulation 5 have curtailed and
restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it bas given
primacy to merit. Now. the Committee is required to categorise the
eligible officers in four different categories, namely' "Outstanding"
"Very good", "Good" and "Unfit" on overall relative assessment of D
their service records. After categorisation is made the Committee has to
arrange the names of off"wers in the'Select List in acC'ordance with the
procedure laid down in Regulation 5(5). In arranging the names in the
Select List the Committee has to follow> the inter·se seniority of officers
within each category. In this .process a junior officer if categorised
"Outstanding" or "Very good" would supersede his seniors. [547A·El E

I.3 Where promotion is made on the basis of.seniority, the senior
has preferential right to promotion against his juniors, but where ·
promotion is made on merit alone, senior officer has no legal Fight to
promotion and if juniors to him are selected for promotion on merit the
senior officer is not legally superseded. [547E-F] F

2.1 Article 16 ensures equality in matters relating to appointment
and promotion to an office or post under the State. It enjoins State mil
to practise discrimination in matters relating to appointment and pro-
motion. A member of the State Civil Servite eligible for selection for
promotion to the I.A,.S. has right to be considered alongwith others for G
selection for promotion. If eligible officers are considered on merit in an
objective manner, no Government servant has any legal right to insist
for promotion nor any such right is protected by Article 14 or 16 of the
Constitution. Article 16 does not insist that reasons should be recorded
for the non-selection of-a member of a State Servic~. [548A-CJ ·
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) .l S.C.R.

A 2.2 In the absence of a statutory provision an Administrative -..,.. .
Authority is under no legal obligation to rncord reasons in support of its
decision. There is no scope for applying ;~rinciples of natural justice in
matters relating to selection of suitable members of State Service for
promotion to a higher service. [548D·El

B 2.3 Rules of natural justice are 0011 rigid rules. They are flexible
and their application depends upon the setting and the back-ground of
statutory provisions, nature of the right which may be affected and the
consequences which niay entail, in the f•icls and circumstances of each
case. These principles do not apply to all cases and situations. Applica·
lion of these uncodified rules is exclude«il in the interest of administra-
C tive efficiency and expedition. Sometimes legislation itself excludes the
application of the rules by express provisfon or by implication. [550B·DI

2.4 In the instant case, statutory Regulations do not expressly or
by implication apply the rule of audi alteram partem ip making the
selection. On the other hand the scheme contained .under the Regula-
0 lions exclude the applicability of the aforesaid rule by implication.
Select List is prepared each year which ordinarily continues to be effec-
tive for a year or till the fresh Select List ,j.o;. prepared. If during the
process of selection a senior officer is proposed to be superseded by
virtue of not being included in the Select List, and if opportunity is
afforded to him to make representation and only thereafter the List is
E finalised, the process would be cumbersome and time consuming. In
this process it will be difficult for the Committee to prepare and finalise
the Select List within a reasonable period of time and the very purpose
of preparing the Select List would be ddeated. Scheme of the Regula-
tions, therefore, clearly warrants exclusion of principles of audi alteram
pariem. No vested legal right of a memh<>r of the State Civil Service who
F after being considered, is not included in the Select List is adversely
affected. Non-inclusion in the Select List does not take away any right of
a member of the State Civil Service that may have accrued to him as a
Government. Therefore, no opportunity is •ecessary to be afforded to him for
making representation agaimt the~ supersession. [550G-H; 551A-C)

G A.K. Kraipak & Ors., etc. etc., v. Union of_India & Ors., [1970) I
SCR 457, Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr., [1971) I SCR 791,
Chairman Board of Mining Examination & Anr., v. Ramjee, [1977) 2
SCR 904 and Union of India & Anr., v. Tulsiram Patel etc., [1985) 3
sec 398, relied npon.
H 3.1 The scheme contained in promotion Regulations and the
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA 533

criteria prescribed therein for preparing the Select List do not justify A
the apprehension that in the absence of reas0ns there would ·be no
objectivity and the selection would be made in an arbitrary manner
over-looking the claim on a senior officer eligible for promotion to the
Indian Administrative Service. The principal object of the promotion
system as contained in the Regulations is to secure the best possible
incumbents for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service which is B
the back-bone ·of the administrative machinery of the country. The
efficiency of the odministralion in the Union as well as in the State
largely depends upon the ·efficiency of the members of the Indian
Administrative Service. Efficient public service is in public interest and
the public interest is best secured if reasonable opportunity for promo-
tion exists for all qualified members of the State Civil Service and only c
those who are found efficient and suitable in all respect are promoted.
This object is sought.to be achieved by the Regulations in prescribing
merit as the sole test for promotion. [553B-D]

3.2 In order to judge the merit, the Regulations provide for
categorisation of eligible members of the State Civil Service on the basis D
of their service records which are scrutinised by the Committee consist-
ing of high ranking officers of the St_ate Government and the Central
Government. The service records of all eligible officers whose names
are included in the proposed Select List and the records of even those
who are not selected is again scrutinised by the State Government and
the Union Public Service Commission and only thereafter final shape is E
given to the Select List. There are, therefore, adequate checks and
safeguards at different stages by different authorities. The machinery
designed for preparation of Select List under the Regulations for promo-
tion to All India Service, ensures objective and impartial selection.
Where power is vested in high authority, there is a presumption that the
s.une would be exercised reasonably. However, if the selection is made F
on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner, the Courts have ample
power to strike oown the same and that is an adequate safeguard .against the
arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, it cannot he held that in the absence
of reasons the selection would be made arbitrariiy. [S53D-H; 554A-C]

4. There are various methods of selection viz. by competitive
G
examination, written test-cU01-viva-voce, or by assessment of servke
records. For the purpose of recruitment to the Indian Administrative
Service from amongst the officers of the State Civil Service, latter
method, namely, selection on the basis of scrutiny of service records has
been accepted. [554E-F] ·
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

Parvez Qadirv. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 432, relied
A
upon.

5.1 There is hardly any scope for a1>plying different standards or
criteria at different times as the service r<ocords, namely, the character
roll entries would indicate the category of the officers as adjudged by
B the authority recording annual confidential remarks. In Punjab jhe
authority competent to record annual remarks in the character rolls of
members of the State Civil Service, has been directed to indicate the
category or the officer' e.g. whether t'ile officer is "Outstanding"'
"Very Good" or "Good". Under inst:ructions issued by the Union
Government all the State Governments are following similar pattern in
categorising members of the State Civil :Service in the annual remarks
c made in their confidential records. This has brought uniformity in the
character role entries. [SSSG·H; 556A-C]

5.2 Since category of members of State Civil Service is available
in their service records, the Committee has no discretion to disregard
D the same. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission that Regula-
tions 3 and S are discriminatory and th"y violate Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. [SS6C-D]

6.1 The material placed on record leaves no doubt that Shri J.C.
, Puri designated as Financial Commissioner (Development) was also dis-
E charging the duties and functions of the Development Commissioner. 411
He was, therefore, holding the dual d1arge as no separate post of
Development Commissioner had been sanctioned by the Government.
These facts clearly show that for all purposes Shri Puri was working as
Development Commissioner. As Fina:ocial Commissioner (Develop-
ment) he was exercising same powers •md discharging same functions
F which could be performed by a Develo11ment Commissioner, therefore ~
he was competent lo participate in th" deliberations of the Selection .
Committee. Moreover, at no stage any objection was raised against
functioning' of Shri Puri as a member of the Selection Committee or his
participation in the deliberations. Th1>re is further no allegations or
mala fide or bias against Shri Puri. There is evidence on ...,.;ord to show
G that recommendations of the Selection Committee coiistituted under
Regulation 3 were unanimous, which were scrutinised by the State
Government and the Union Public Service Commission before the same
were approved. [SS7H; 55&\-C]

6.2 In the instant case, the validi1ty or the recommendations made
H for the preparation of Select List of 1''79 are not vitiated as Shri J.C.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA 535

Puri was neither biased against any of the appellants/petitioners, nor A
there was any conflict between his personal interest and duty. Sbri Puri
had no interest in the inclusion or exclusion of any member of the State
Civil Service nor he bad any personal interest in preparing the· List.
There is no 8'1egation of bias or malice against Sbri Puri. His participa-
tion in the meeting of the Selection Committee did not '"fnder the Select
List of 1979 illegal. (5588; 559A] · B
')r·
7. The Central Government has framed promotio!I Regulations
which provide method and manner of Selection. Regulation 3 provides
for constitution of Selection Committee to prepare List of suitable offi-
cers in accordance with Regulation 5. The list so prepared is forwarded
> by the State Government to the Union Public Service Commission along C
with the records and the observations of the State Government in
-... accordance with Regulation 6. Thereafter, the Commission considers
the List under Regulation 7. The Commission shall finally approve the
List received from the State Government with such modification as in
its opinion it may he just and proper and this List forms the Select List
of members of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains in force D
until its review and revision. Regulation 9 lays down that the appoiet-
ment of members of State Civil Service shall be made by the .Central
Government on the recommendations of the State Government in the
order in which their names appear in the Select List. These Regulations
do not in any manner impinge upon the powe"I' of the State Government
to make recommendations to the Central Government as c~ntemplateil E
by Rule 8 of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Therefore, Regulations
3,. 5 and 7 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955
are not ultra vires. [559F-H; B]

.8. In the instant case, the Select List of 1979 continued to be
effective till Select List for the year 1980 was finally approved. The F
officers included in the Select List of 1979 were promoted and
appointed to IAS before the final approval of the Select List for the year
1980. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the validity of their
appointment. The delay made by the State'Government in forwarding
its comments to the Union Public Service Commission with regard to
the 11)80 Li~t did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners as none of G
them was selected for inclusion in 1980 List. Merely because the State
Government forwarded its recommendations with delay is not sufficient
to justify inference that the delay was purposive with a view to grant
undue favour to some of the officers. Since the process of selection,
preparation of Select List and its final approval is time consuming,
sometimes delay may be inevitable. State Government should take H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A action· well in advance to avoid any delay. If undue delay is caused in
preparation of Select List, it provides occasions for suspicion against
the authorities and it is likely to generate frustration and heart burning
among the members of the State Civil s,ervice which would obviously be
detrimental to public administration. [SliOF; 561A-B]
B
Per Mukharji, J.

I. It cannot be said now-a-days if one is aware of the facts and
currents of Hie that simply because categorisation and judgment of the
service records of officers are in the hands of senior officers is a suffi-
cient safegnanl. There has been considerable erosioo in the intrinsic
C sense of fairness and justice in the "''nior officers by all concerned.
From the instances of cooduct of many., some of senior officers and men
in high position, it cannot be said that such erosion is not only
unjustified. [53'.IA-B]

2. In order to rule out any grievance actual or fancied, some
0
objective basis for the categorisation should be laid down. If such objec-
tive basis are made known, the fact that after <:alegorisation, the selec-
tioo of junior officers in preference to senior officers need not state
reasoos and woold not be violative of tt1e canoos of justice but otherwise
there will be room for suspicion anfil that too would not be wholly
unjustified. [S39C]
E
3. It is suggested to the Government and the authorities con-
cerned that there should be some bads for the cate:iorisation of the
officers and such basis should be objfrlive and not merely subjective
evaluation and furthermore such ba••s •hoold be formulated in the
F form of guidelines. [539D I

4. Objectivity in subjective eval 113tion of the worth of the diffe-
rent officers would go a long way to generate a feeling that justice has
been done and unless members of th<: administration feel that justice
has been done to them, the administration cannot become an effective
G ·weapon for social change ushering soci:ol justice. [539D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIIN: Civil Appeal No:-4370 of
1983 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26. 1I. 1979 of the Pun jab
H and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 3821of1979.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [MUKHARJI, J.I 537
__,
R.K. Garg, R.S. Dass-in-person, B.S. Khoji, Arun Madar A
& T .S. Arora for the Appellant's/Petitioners.

G.A. Shah, V.C. Mahajan, Anil Dev Singh, L.K. Gupta, C.V.
Subba Rao, R .. S. Sodhi, G.D. (}upta, A.C. Sharma-in-person, Arvind
Minneha, Inderjit Malhotra, M.S. Dhillon for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by

SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. I· have had the advantage of
reading the judgment in draft to be delivered by my learned brother
K.N. Singh, J. I agree with him that the appeals and the writ petitions
herein should be dismissed without any order as to costs. I also res- C
pectfully agree with him on the conclusions he· has reached on the
different contentions urged before us in these cases. It is not necessary
to refer to the facts and the issues which have been exhaustively discus-
sep by my learned brother. There is, however, one aspect of the matter
on which I have certain reservations and I would like to express my
views on this aspect so that the Government and the authorities con- D
cemed may try to evolve a little more objective basis on that aspect.

As mentioned, the validity of the Select Lists of 1978, 1979, 1980
and 1983 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was
impugned in these matters on the ground that the Committee had not
retarded any reasons for superseding the appellants and/or petition- E
ers. The question of recording of reasons had been· discussed in the
decision of this Court where Select List was quashed on the ground
that the Committee had failed to record reasons in superseding senior
officers. In view of Regulation.5(1) to 5(5) as prevailing at the relevant
time which came up for interpretation in Union of India v. Mohan Lal
Capoor & Others, (1974] 1 SCR 797, this Court quashed the Select List F
on the ground that the Committee had failed to record reasons in
superseding senior officers. It was held that it was incumbent on the
Selection Committee to have stated reasons in view of the said Regula-
tion in a manner which would disclose as to how the record of
superseded officers was judi;,ed in relation to -the record of those offi-
cers who were preferred for selection. This Court reiterated in the G
context of the said Regulation that there was a mandatory obligation
to record reasons in superseding senior officers, and therefore ·in. the
absence of such reasons the Select List had been vitiated.

Regulation 5 was, however, as noted by my learned brother,
amended by Notification dated 3rd January, 1977 and after the amend- H
,'
538 SUPREME COUltT REPORTS [ 1987] l-S.C.R.
(
·-j..'

A ment, Regulation 5(4) and 5(5) wai; altered. It was provided that the
Selection Committee should classify eligible officers as 'Outstanding",
"Very Good", "Good" or 'Unfit" as the case might be on overall
relative assessment of their service record. The Committee was re-
quired to categorise officers in four categories on the basis of an over-
all relative assessment of service record of the officers. After categori-
B sation the Committee was required to place the names of those officers ..... '
first on the list who might be categorised as "Outstanding" and there-
after those officers as mentioned aforesajd. Under the amended Regu-
lation if a senior officer is supersed~ed, the amended Regulation 5(5)
does not require the Committee to record reasons for such superses-
siori. The new amended Regulation emphasise_d that the merit and
suitability was the governing consideration and seniority played only a
c subsidiary role. It was only when merits were roughly equal, seniority
was the relevant determining factor. Regulation 5(5) as it stood prior
to Capoor's case laid emphasis on the role of seniority. This has been
done away with.

D It is stated on behalf of the respondents that it was felt difficult to
record reasons in the prescribed manner as laid down by this Court in
the said decision and the question was considered by a Conference of
Chief Secretaries in May, 1976 and was further considered. The
Committee recommended that the "ystem of categorisation of officers
for promotion to the higher post »hould be followed in case of All
E India Service also and thereafter the categorisation as noted above was
introduced in consultation with the State Governments. Indeed the
amended provision Regulation 5 minimised the role of seniority in the
process of seiection and importance and primacy was given to merit.
This indeed is a laudable object and helps in having the best for the
-
country. It is also true that if selection is made on merit alone for
F promotion to higher service, selecti,Jn of such an officer though junior
in service in preference to his . senior does not really amount to
supersession. If promotion is made on merit alone, the senior officer
per se has no legal right to promotion and if promotion is made on
merit,. it cannot be said that a senior officer has been superseded. It
has been emphasised that the cat(:gorisation is done on the service
G record. This has also been emphasifed that such categorisation is done
on the service record including confidential character rolls as main-
tained by senior officers holding high positions. It is, therefore,
according to my learned brother, sufficient safeguard against arbitrary
categorisation and misuse of power. I have my reservations on this
aspect though I accede the position that in the absence of any other
H practicable solution, this is perhaps a sufficient safeguard and perhaps
R.S.' DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.J 539

a practical way of facing a rather delicate task. It cannot be said now-a- A
days if one is aware of the facts and currents of life that simply because
categorisation and judgment of the service record of officers are in the
hands of senior officers is a sufficient safeguard. There has been con-
siderable erosion in the intrinsic sense of fairness and.justicthn the
senior officers by all concerned. From the instances of conduct of
many, some of senior officers and men in high position, it cannot be B
said that such erosion is not only unjustified.

In order to rule out any grievance ~qtua[ or fancied, some objec-
tive basis for the categorisation in the n\anner indicated should be laid
down. If .such objective basis are made known, the fact that after
categorisation, the selection of junior officers in preference to senior c
officers need not state reasons and would not be ·violative of the
canons of justice but otherwise there will be room for suspicion and
that. too would not be wholly unjustified.

I would therefore like to suggest to the Government and the
authorities concerned that there should be some basis for the categori- D
sation of the officers and such basis should be objective and not merely
subjective evaluation and furthermore such basis should be formulated
in the form of guidelines. Objectivity in subjecti".e evaluation of the
worth of the different officers would go a long way to generate a feeling
-""' that justice has been done and unless members of the administration
·feel that justice has been done to them, the administration cannot E

- become an effective weapon for social change ushering social justice ..,

I, however, hasten to add that in these cases I agree with my
learned brother that justice has been done in accordance with the rules
to the officers concerned and therefore concur with him in the order as
proposed. F

SINGH, J: These three Civil Appeals are directed against the
judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court dismis-
sing the writ petitions filed by R.S. Das, Mrs. K. Goyal challenging the
validity of the Select List prepared for the year 1978, 1979 for promo-
tion of members of Punjab State Civil Service (Executive) to the G
Indian Administrative Service. During the pendency <if these appeals
17 writ petitions were filed before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution by Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh Nagpal and other members
of the Punjab' State Civil Service (Executive) challenging the validity
of Select List prepared for the year 1979, 1980 and 1983, As all the
cases rest upon similar facts and involve common questions of law, H
540 SUPREME CO\JllT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A these were heard together and we consider it necessary .to dispose
them of by common judgment.

R.S. Das, Mrs. K. G_oyal and Baldev Kapoor members of the
Punjab State Civil Service (Executhe) had completed more than eight
years of service and they were eli~:ible for promotion to the Indian
B Administrative Service but their names were not included in the Select
. ..,._,
'
List for the year 1978, while the names of officers junior to them were
included in the Select List. R.S. Das, Mrs. K. Goyal and Baldev
Kapoor filed three separate petitiof!f• before Punjab and Haryana High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of
Select List of 1978. Their grievance was that though they were senior,
C having good service record yet they were superseded by officers junior
to them in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons for the
same. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed all the three
petitions by a common order dated November 20, 1979 rendered in
Baldev Kapoor's [1980] 2 SLR 309 ease holding that the Select List
prepared for the year 1978 did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
D During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, another Select List
was prepared for the year 1979 and in that List also the name of R.S.
Oas was not included. He filed another writ petition challenging the
validity of that Select List also almost on the same grounds, that writ
petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench on November 26,
1979. R.S. Das and Mrs. K. Goyal have preferred appeal before this
E Court by special le.ave. During the pendency of these Appels Pritam
Singh and 15 other officers of the State Civil Service challenged the
validity of Select List prepared for the year 1979 and 1980 before this
Court by means of petition~ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Ajit
Singh Nagpal and other officers filed a similar petitions challenging the
validity of Select List prepa~ed for the year 1983. The challenge to the
F validity of the Select List for the Y''ar 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 are
almost on similar grounds.

Before the High Court S/Shri R.S. Das, Baldev Kapoor and Smt.
K. Goel challenged the validity of the Select List of 1978 on the ground
that mandatory provisions of Regulation 6 of the Indian Administra-
G tive Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (herein-
after referred to as the Regulations> were violated in making the selec-
tion as the service records of eligibk"state officers including that of the
petitioners .had not been forwarded to the Union Public Service
Commission and its approval was given without considering the recom-
mendations made by the Selection Committee. Amendment made in
H Regulation 5 deleting the provisions which required reasons to be
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J .] 54 !

recorded for the supersession of a state officer, was arbitrary and A
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners further
challenged the vires of the Regulations on the ground of their being
inconsistent with the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment)
Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and inclusion of
name of K.S. Raju was assailed on the ground that he had earned
B
adverse remarks and yet he was selected. The petitioners further
raised grievance that important material relating to the petitioners'
service including certificate and fetters of recommendations as contained
in their service records were not considered by the selection commit-
tee. The High Court by a well considered judgment rendered in
Beldev Singh's case (supra) dismissed all the three writ petitions on the
findings that the select list prepared for the year 1978 was in accord- c
ance with the regulations and it did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
It appears that validity of the Select List of 1978 was challenged by J..S.
Chopra and other officers of the state civil service before the High
Court under Article 226 of. the Constitution on the same ground which
had already been rejected by the Division Bench in Baldev Kapoor's
D
case (supra). However having regard to the decision of this Court in
Union of India v. Chothia (H.P) & Ors., etc. etc., [1978) 3 SCR 6S2.
Division Bench referred the matter for consideration to a larger bench
on the question as to whether the Select List was vitiated for the
· non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch as 'reasons for the
supersession of senior officers were not forwarded to the Commission.
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the decision of this Court E
in Chothia's case did not affect the positiori and the Division Bench
decision in Baldev Singh's case correctly laid down the law.

In the present appeals and petitions learned counsel for the ap-
pellants and the petitioners as well as Shri R.S. Dass, appellant who
F
appeared in person argued the case and have made the following
submissions:

(1) The select list of 1978-79, 1980 and 1983 are vitiated on
the ground that select committee did not record any
reasons in superseding the appellants/petitioners in exclu- G
ding their names and including the names of junior officers
in the·select list.·

(2) Amendment of the Regulation 5(7) is violative of Arti-
cles 14 and 16 as it confers unguided power on the Selection
Committee to supersede senior officers. H

' '
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A (3) The select list prepared for the year 1978 was vitiated
for the non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) as no reasons
were forwarded by the State Committee to the Commission
along with record of offkers proposed to be superseded.

(4) Even if under the Regulations no reasons were neces-
B sary to be recorded, principles of Natural Justice and fair
play required that reaso:J should have been recorded.

(5) The select list prepared for the year 1978, 1979 was
vitiated on account of the unauthorised participation of
Shri J.C. Puri as a memher of the Selection Committee. ~-
'
-
c
( 6) Regulations 3 and i of the Promotion Regulation are
violative of rule 8( I) of the recruitment rules inasmuch as
the Promotion Regulations imping" upon the State
Government's power to make recommendations for
appointment to the service.
0
(7) The State Government deliberately delayed its com-
ments on the select [i,.t prepared for 1980 to the Public
Service Commission wi1h a view to give undue advantage to
the officers included in the 1979 list for promotion to the
Indian Administrative ~:.ervice.
E
Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the appel-
lants/petitioners we think it necess.ary to refer to therelevant statutory
provisions regulating promotion of members of the State Civil Service
to the Indian Administrative Service. The Central Government in
exercise of its powers under section 3 of the All India Services Act,
F 1951 framed Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as the Rut,,.). Rule 4 provides for recruitment
to the service, according to this rule recruitment to the Indian
Administrative Service is made by: (i) direct recruitment through com-
petitive examination; (ii) promotion of substantive members of the
G State Civil Service (Executive) and (iii) Selection from amongst
persons holding posts in substantial capacity in connection with the
affairs of the State, who may not be members of the State Civil
Service. Rule 6 provides that no appointment shall be made to the
Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as the Service)
except in accordance with the recruitment by one ·of the methods
H specified in rule 4. Rule 7 provides for direct recruitment through
competitive examination. Rule f.(1) confers power on the Central
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.l 543
··~-
Government to appoint members of the State Civil Service by promo- A
tion to the Service on the recommendation of the State Government
and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission in
accordance with Regulations ·which may be framed by the Central
Government. .fa exercise of its powers under Rule 8(1) the Central
-;;,.,. Government has framed the Indian Administrative Service (Appoint-
B
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the
Regulations) laying down procedure of selection for appointment to
the service by promotion. Regulation 3. provides for constitution of a
Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service
- ,. Commission or a member of the Commission and other members as
specified in column 2 to the schedule to the Regulations. Regulation 5
,,. ~
provides that the Committee shall ordinarily meet at intervals not
exceeding one year to prepare the list of such members of the State
c
Civil Service found suitable for promotion to the service on an overall
relative assessment of the service. This list prepared by the' Committee
is forwarded to the Commission by the State,Government ·along with
the records of membe·rs of those selected as well as of those proposed
D
to be superseded together with the observation of the State Govern-
ment on the recommendation' of the Committee_ Regulation 7 pro-

... .
vides that the Union Public Service Commission shall consider the list
along with the documents received from the State Government and on
its approval the list so approved shall form the Select List of the
members of the State Civil Service. The Select List shall ordinarily be
E
in force until a fresh list is prepared and approved for the subsequent
year. Regulation 8 lays down that appointment of members of the
·State Civil Service shall be made by the Central Government on the
recommoindations of the State Government in the order, in which the
names of members of the State Civil Service appear in the Select List.
These Regulations clearly provide for the selection of officers of the
' . -;..
!
State Civil Service on merit on the overall relative assessment of their
service record. In the process of preparing the select list if the seniors
F

are not found suitable for promotion and their names in the select list
is l)Ot included and, if junior officers are found suitable for the inclu-
sion of their names in the Select List, the seniors stand.superseded, as
the selection is made on merit and not on the overall relative assess-
G
ment of their service record. In the process of preparing the select list
if the seniors are not found suitable for promotion and their names in
--;O the select list is not included and, if junior officers are found suitable
for the inclusion of their names in the Select List, the seniors stand
superseded, as the selection is made on merit and not on the basis of
seniority · H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners assailed the valid-
ity of the Select List of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 on the ground that
the Committee did not record any reasons in superseding the appel-
lants and petitioners. Support was drawn from the decision of this
Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., [1974] I SCR
8 797 where Select List was quashed on the ground that the Committee
had failed to record reasons in superseding senior officers. The Court
held that it was incumbent on the Sdection Committee to have stated
reasons in a manner which. would disclose as to how the record of
superseded officers st.ood in. relation to the record of those officers
who were preferred for selection. The Court further held that the
Selection Committee was under a mandatory obligatiJn to record
C reasons in superseding senior officers, in the absence of any such
reasons the Select List was vitiated. Regulation 5(1) to 5(5) which
came up for interpretation before this Court in Capoor's case were as
under:

5(1) The Committee shall prepare a list of such members
D
of the State Civil/Police Service as satisfy the condition
specified in regulation 4 and as are held by the Committee
to be suitable for promo! .on to the service. The number of
members of the State Civil/Police Service included in the
list shall not be more than twice the number of substantive
vacancies anticipated in the course of the period twelve
E
· months commencing fron the date of the preparation of
the list.

(2) The Selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on
merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to
F .seniority.

(3) The names of the offrcers included in the list shall be
arranged in order of seniority in the State Civil/Police
Service.

Provided that any ju11ior officer who in the opinion of
G
the Committee is of exceptional merit and suitability may
be assigned a place in the list higher than that of offi-
cers senior to him. 1

(4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised
H every year.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.] 545

(5) If in the process of selection, review or revision it is A
proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil/
Police Service the Committee shall record its reasons for
the proposed supersession.

On construction of the aforesaid Regulation 5(5) this court held that it
was a mandatory obligation on the Committee to record reasons if it B
-..;;, proposed supersession of a senior member of the State Civii Service.
The court further held that since no reasons were recorded the Com-
mittee had failed to discharge a mandatory obligation, as a result of
which the list prepared by it was rendered illegal. Regulation 5 was,
however, amended by notification dated 3.6.197'7, and after the
·~ amendment Regulation 5( 4) and (5) read as under: C

5(4) "The Selection Committee shall classify eligible offi-
cers as "Outstanding", '"Very Good:' "Good" or "Unfit" as
the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their
service record.
D
5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required
number of names, first from amongst officers finally_ clas-
sified as "Outstanding", then from amongst those similarly

- -~
classified as "Very Good" thereafter from amongst those
similarly classified as "Good" and the order of the names
inter se within each category shall be, in the order of their
seniority in the State Civil Service."
E

- Under the amended Regulations the Committee is required to
categorise officers in four categories on the basis of overall assessment
of service record of officers. After categorisation the committee is
required to place the name of those officers first on the list who may be F
categorised as "Outstanding" and thereafter names of those officers
shall be included who are found to be "Very Good". And only thereaf-
ter the names of those officers shall be included who may be cate-
,gorised "Good". If in this process any seniur officer is superseded the
.amended Regulation 5(5) rioes not require the Committee to record
reasons for the supersession. The amended·Regulations have brought G
in significant change and now the process of Selection as contemplated
by Amended Regulations do not require the Selection Committee to
record reasons for the supersession of officers of the State Civil
Service.

In Capoor's case the Regulation 5(2) as it then existed laid H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
,
A down that selection for inclusion in the list shall be based "~n merit -f.. ...
and suitability with due regard to ,.eniority" which meant that merit
and suitability in all respects was the governing consideration and
seniority was to play a secondary rol.e, but if merit and suitability were
roughly equal, seniority was the determining factor or if it was not
reasonably possible to assess inter-se merit and suitability of two eligi-
B ble officers and come to a firm conclusion, seniority tilted the scale.
Regulation 5(5) as it then existed laid emphasis on the role of seniority
,,,. ....
as it laid down that in the process of selection, review or revision of the
select list if it was proposed to sup·~rsede any member of State Civil
Service, the Committee shall recrnd its reasons for the proposed
supersession. The necessity to record reasons clearly implied that
c senfority of an officer in the State Service could not be ignored. -~
altogether. This Court in Capoor's .:ase held that if senior officer was
superseded by including the name of a Junior Officer in the select list .+.. "'
in preference to a senior officer, the Committee was under a manda-
tory legal obligation to record reasons in a manner which would
disclose how the record of each offic·!r superseded, stood in relation to
D record of others who were to be preferred. The court further emphasi-
~ed that recording of reasons was necessary as it provided a visi-
ble safeguard against possible in justice and arbitrariness in making the
selection. It appears that the Committee making selection constituted
for the purpose of preparing the select list felt difficulty in recording
reasons, in the precise manner as laid down by this Court. The ques-
E ti on was considered by a conference of Chief Secr~taries held in May,
1976 and it appointed a Committee to consider the question. The
Committee noted that consequent ·to the judgment of this Court in
... -
Capoor' s case, there was tendency for the Selection Committee to go
by seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit, even though Regula- -
tions prescribed merit as the criteria for selection. The Committee
F reported that the system of categori,.ation of officers for promotion to
the Higher Post should be followed in case of All India Services also.
After considering the report of the Committee, the Conference of
Chief Secretaries made recommendations to the Union Government
that necessary amendment should be made in the Regulations provid-
-~- ..
ing for grading of eligible officers a.s "Outstanding", "Very Good",
G "Good" for the purpose of being placed in the select list to ensure that
select list is drawn upon the basis of merit and suitability and to ob-
viate the necessity of giving reasons for the supersession of any officer.
.,.¥
In pursuance to the recommendations of the Chief Secretaries
Conference the Central Government in consultation with the State
H Governments and the Union Public: Service Commission, amended
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA (SINGH, J .) 547

Regulation 5 by its notification No. 11089/6/76-AIS(l)-A dated A
3.6.1977.
" p
The amended provmons of Regulation 5 have curtailed and
restricted the role of seniority in the process of selection as it has given
primacy to merit. Now the Committee is required to categorise the
eligible officers in four different categories, namely "Outstanding" B
"Very Good", "Good" and "Unfit" on overall relative assessment of
their service records. After categorisation is made the Committee has
to arrange the names of officers in the select list in accordance with the
procedure laid down in regulation 5(5). In arranging the names in. the
select list the Committee has to follow the inter-se seniority of officers
~ithin each category. If there are five officers fall within the "Out- C
standing" category their names shall be arranged in the order having
regard to their inter-se seniority in the State Civil Service. The same
principle is followed in arranging the list from amongst the officers
falling in the category of "Very Good" and "Good". Similarly if a
junior officer's name finds place in the category of "Outstanding", he
would be placed higher in the list in preference to a senior officer D
included in the "Very Good" or "Good" category. In this process a
junior officer if categorised "Outstanding" or "Very Good" would
supersede his seniors. This cannot be helped. Where selection made
on merit alone for promotion to a higher service, selection of an officer ·
though junior in service in preference to his senior does not strictly
. amount to. supersession. Where promotion is made on the basis of E
seniority, the senior has preferential right to promotion against his

-
juniors but where promotion is made on merit alone, senior officer has
no legal right to promotion 'and if juniors to him are selected for
promotion on merit the senior officer is not legally superseded. When
merit is the criteria for the selection amongst the members of the
service, no officer has legal right to be selected for promot_ion, except F
that he has only right to be considered along with others. In Gurdayal
Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1982] 1 SCR 904. This court held
that a member of State Civil Service has no legal right to promotion,
instead he has only right to be considered along with others. But
assuming that appellants/petitioners stood superseded by the reason
that junior officers to them were included in the select list, no reasons G
were necessary to be recorded in view of the amended statutory
provisions.

Learned counsel urged that reasons if recorded ensure objec-
tivity and impartialiiy. In !he absence of reasons the Committee may
act in arbitrary manner to supersede senior officers which would' be H
548 SUPREME COJRT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

A violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We find no merit in ·;Ii ~
the submission. Article 16 ensures equality in matters relating to
appointment and promotio'! to an officer or post under the State. It
t!njoins State not to practise descrimination in matters relating to
appointment and promotion. A member of the State Civil Service eligible
for selection for promotion to th~ l.A.S. has right to be considered
B alongwith others for selection for· promotion. If eligible officers are
considered on merit, in an objective manner no Govt. servant has any '--!--.
legal right to insist for promotion nor any such right is protected by the
Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Article 16 does not insist that
reasons should be recorded for the non-selection of a member of a
State Serviec.
c -4
Learned counsel urged that in the absence of statutory provision,
principles of natural justice require the selectica committee to record -~·
.....
reasons for the supersession of officers to enable them to make re-
presentation against their superseo:sion.

D We find no merit in the submissioin. Principles of natural justice
do not require an administrative i-uthority or a selection committee or
an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a
person. In the absence ot' a statutory provision an administrative
authority is under no legal obligat,on to record reasons in support of its
decision. There is no scope for applying principles of natural justice in
E matters rel~ting to selection of suitable members of State Service for ...t
promotion to a higher service. In Mohan/al Capoor's case similar sub-

-
mission was htade that principles of natural justice require communi·
cation of reasons t© the officer proposed to be superseded to enable
him to make representation. Both the learned Judges who constituted
the Bench repelled the contention. Mathew, J. held that no notice was
F required to be given t@ a senior officer if he was proposed to be
superseded in favour of a junior en the ground of his greater merit and
suitability, the learned judge further observed that it was not ex· -~ ~

pedient to extend the horizon of natural justice. Beg, J. also rejected
the submission that minimal reqdrement of just and fair treatment in
such a situation would be to inform the officer to be superseded, the
G reasons recorded for his proposed supersession to enable him to make
representation. On such a ground expansion of scope of natural justice
was.not justified.

The principle of audi alteram partem is a basic concept of princi·
pies of natural justice. No one should be condemned without hearing is
H the essence of justice. Courts of :aw apply this principle to ensure fair
\
R.S. DASS ETC.ETC. v. UNIONOFINDIA[SINGH,J.] 549

,.. " . play and justice in judicial and quasi-judicial matters. Of late these A
principles llave been extended even to administrative actions also.
However, the application of the audi alteram partem rule is not appli-
cable to all eventualities or to cure all ills. Its application is excluded in
the interest of administrative efficiency and expedition. Sometimes
legislation itself excludes the application of the rule. It is difficult to
, -~- conceive exhaus.tively all eventualities and circumstances for appli~- B
tion or exclusion of the rule. In A.K. Kraipak & Ors., etc. etc., v.
Union of India & Ors., (1970] 1 SCR 457 a Constitution Bench of this
Court held these rules operate only in areas not covered by any law
validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land
but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to
.._. sectlre justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their C
purpose, there is no reason why they should not be made applkable to
-.. administrative proceedings also, expecially when it is not easy to draw
the line that demarcates, administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial
ones, and an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have a
more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.
The Bench, however, further observed that the concept of natural. D
justice have under gone a great deal of change in recent years. What
particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must
depend to a great extent on the facts al)d circumstances of that case,
the frame-work of the law under which the enquiry is held and the
~ Constitution of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that
1
purpose. ' E

In Union of India v. Col, J.N. Sinha & Anr., (1971] '1 SCR 791
this Court held that if a statutory provision either specifically or by
necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the princi-
ples of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the
, l~gislature or the statutory authority and r~ad into the concerned pro- F
~· 7 visions the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a
p<>wer conferred should be made.in accordance with any of the princi-
ples of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the
provision conferring power, the nature of the power conferred, the
purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that
power. G

In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination & Anr., v. Ramjee,
[1977) i SCR 904 Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Court observed:

"Natural Justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine,
nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

maker to the man proceeded _against, the form, features
A and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety
being conditioned by the facts and circumsti:nces of such
situation, no breach of natural justice can be comp:.tlned
of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without
'~ . reference to the administrative realities and other factors of
B a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical
nor fanatical but should -be flexible yet firm in this
jurisdiction."

It is well established· that rules of natural justice are not rigid
. rules~ they are flexible and their appliciiion depends upon the setting
and the back-ground of statutory provision, nature of the right which
C may be effected and the. consequences which may entail, its applica-
tion depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. These
.principles do not apply to all cases and situations. "Applications of
these uncodified rules are often excluded by express provision· or by
implication. In Union of India & Anr., v. Tulsiram Patel etc., [1985] 3
D SCC 398 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the scope and
exteni of applicability of principles of natural justice to administrative
actions. Madon, J summarised the position of law on this point and
observed as follows:

"So far as the audi alteram partem rule is concerned, both
E in England and in India, it is well established that where a
, righi to _a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard
before ·an order is passed would obstruct the taking of
prompt action such a right can be excluded. This right can
also be excluded where the nature of the action to be
taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the re-
F levant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion; nor can
.the audi a/teram partem rule be invoked if importing it
· would have the effect· of paralysing the . administrative
process or where the, need for promptitude or the urgency
of taking action so demands, as pointed out in Meneka
Gandhi's [1978] 2 SCR 62<1 cases."
G
In the instant cases-statutory Regulations do not expressly or by impli-
cation apply the rule of audi alteram partem in making the selection.
On the other hand the scheme contained under the regulations exclude
the applicability of the aforesaid rule by implication. Select list is '
prepared each year which ordinarily continues to be effective for a
H year or till the fresh select list is prepared. If during the process of
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH,J.l 551

selection a senior officer is proposed to be superseded by virtue of not A
being included in the select list, and ifopportunity is afforded to him to
make representation and only thereafter the lisf is finalised, the pro-
cess would be cumbersome and time consuming. In this process it will
be difficult for the committee to prepare and finalise the select list
within a reasonable perio9 of time and the very purpose of preparing
the select list would be defeated. Scheme of the Regulations therefore B
clearly warrants exclusion of principle of audi alteram partem. No
vested legal right of a member of the State Civil Service who after
being considered, is not included in the select list, is adversely
affected, Non-inclusion in the select list does not take away any right
of a member of the State Civil Service that may have accrued to him as
a Govt. servant, therefore no opportunity is neeessary to be afforded c
to him for making representation against the proposed supersession.

The next submission was that the select list prepared for 1978
was vitiated for the non-compliance of Regulation 6(iii) inasmuch .as
the State Govt: failed to forward to the Commission reasons recorded
by the Committee for supersession of seniors as required by that Regu- D
lation. It' was urged that even after deletion of Regulation 5(5) which
required Committee to record reasons for super~ession of an officer by
the Notification dated June 3, 1977, Regulation 6(iii) remained un-
amended, therefore, the Committee was under a mandatory duty to
record reasons, and the State Govt. was required to forward the same
to the Commission. Since the Committee failed to comply with the E
mandatory obligation, the select list prepared for the year 1978 stood
vitiated. To support this submission reliance was placed on the deci-
sion of this Court in Chothia's case. In that case interpretation of
Regulation 5 of the Indian Forests Service (Initial Recruitment) Regu-
lation of 1966 came up for consideration. Regulation 5 laid down
method for preparation of list of suitable officers of State Forest F
Service adjudged by the Selection· Board for appointment to posts in
the senior and junior scales of Indian Forest Service. Regulation 5(2)
was as under:

"5(2): The list prepared in accordance with sub-regulation
(I) shall then be referred to the Commission for advice, by G
the Central Govt. alongwith-

(a) the records of all officers of State Forest Service inclu-
ded in the list;

(b) the records of all other eligible officers of the Slate H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable for inclusion -A:::::;:
in the list, together with the reasons as recorded by the \
Board for their non-i11clusion in the list."

Construing the aforesaid regulation this Court held that both the
B clauses (a) and (b) of Regulation 5 must be complied with before the
recomendations are sent to the Commission. Clause (b) of the Regula-
tion 5 laid down that where eligible officers of the State Forest Service
were not found suitable, reasons must be given by the Board for their
non-inclusion in the select list. The Court held that Regulation 5(b)
which provided for recording reasons was mandatory and it must be
complied with. But in view of the amendments made in Regulations
C under consideration providing for selection on the basis of categorisa-
tion of members of the State Ci vii Service into different categories on
the assessment of their servi•:e records, principles laid down in
Chothia's case are not applicabk After the amendment of Regulation
5 the Committee was under no legal obligation to record reasons for
D supersession of a senior officer and for that reason it did not record
any reasons, therefore, the que;tion of forwarding any reasons by the
. State Government to the Commission did not arise. Regulation 6(iii)
which required the State Government to forward to the Commission
along with reasons as recorded by the Committee for the proposed
supersession of any member of the State Civil Service was consistent
E with the unamended R~gulation 5(5) which required the Committee to
record reasons for supersession of a member of the State Civil Service.
· By Notification No. 11039/3/78-AIS(l) dated June 2, 1979 Clause (iii)
of Regulation 6 was deleted as a result of which the State Govt. ceased
to the under any obligation to forward to the Commission reasons
recorded by the Committee for supersession of officers. Having regard
F to .the legislative history and the purpose and the object which 1 as
sought to be achieved by the •mendments there could be no mam.a-
tory legal obligation on the Committee to record reasons. Regulation
6(iii) merely required the State Govt. to forward reasons if recorded
for supersession of the officern to the Commission, but if no reasons
were recorded the State Govt. was under no legal obligation to for-
G ward the same to the Comm:1ssion and its non-compliance did not
vitiate the select list. Since the entire system of selection has been
changed on account of amendment in the regulations, the principles
laid down in Chothia's case do not apply to the instant cases. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court in P. C. Pradhan v. Union of India &
Ors., [1981] 1 SLR 1 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in J.S.
H Chopra's [1980] 2 ILR Punj. 477 case have taken similar views.
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.) 553

The Appellants/Petitioners entertain an apprehension that in the A
absence of reasons the selection would be made in an arbitrary manner
over-looking the claim of a senior officer eligible for promotion to the
Indian Administrative Service. In this regard it was urged that selec-
tion on merit confe~s wide discretion on the authority making selection
and in the absence of reasons there would be no objectivity and the
members of the State Civil Service would receive discriminatory treat- B
ment by the committee. The scheme contained in promotion regula-
tions and the criteria prescribed therein for preparing the. select list do
not justify any such apprehension. The principal object of the promo-
tion system as contained in the regulations is to secure the best possi-
ble incumbents for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service
which is the back-bone of the administrative machinery of the country. c
The efficiency of the administration in the Uniol\ as well as in the State
largely depends upon the efficiency of the members of the Indian
Administrative Service. Efficient public service is 'in public interest
and the public interest is best secured if reasonable opportunity for
promotion exist for all qualified members of the State Civil Service
and only those who are found efficient and suitable in all respects are D
promoted. This object is sought to be achieved by the Regulations in
prescribing merit as the sole test for promotion. In order to judge the
merit the regulations provide for categorisation of eligible members of
the State Civil Service on the basis of their service records which are
scrutinised by the Committee consisting of high ranking officers of the
State Govt. and the Central Govt. The service records of all eligible E
officers whose names are included in the proposed select list and the
records of even those who are not selected is again scrutinised by the
State Govt. and the Union Public Service Commission and only there-
after final shape is given to the selection list. There are, therefore,
adequate checks and safeguards at different stages by different ,au-
thorities. But if any dispute arise with regard to the arbitrary exclusion F
l of a senior member of the State Service the matter can always be
-- 7
investigated by perusing his service records and comparing the same
with the service record of officers who may have been preferred and
that would certainly disclose the reasons for the supersession of the
senior officer. It is true that where merit is the sole basis for promo-
tion, the power of selection becomes wide and liabfo to be abused with G
less difficulty, But that does not justify presumption regarding
arbitrary exercise of power. The machinery designed for preparation
of select list under the regulations for promotion to All India Service,
ensures objective and. impartial selection. The Selection Commitee is
constituted by high ·ranking responsible officers presided over by
Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission. H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '[1987] 1 S.C.R.

There is no reas0n to hold that they would not act in fair and impartial
A manner. in making selection. The recommendations of the selection
C:ommittee are scrutinised by the State Govt. and if it finds any dis-
.. · crimination ·in the selection it has power to refer the· matter to the
Commission with its recommendations. The Commission is under a
legal. obligation to .,;,nsider the views expressed by the State Govt.
B along with the records of officers, before approving the select list. The
selection committee and the Commission both include persons having
requisite knowledge, experienre and expertise to assess the service
records and ability to adjudge the suitability of officers. In this view we
find no good reasons to hold that in the absence of reasons the selec-
. tion would be made arbitrarily. Where power is vested in high author-
,,,. ity there is a. presumption that the same would be exercised in a
C reasonable manner and if the selection is made on extraneous consi-
derations, in arbitrary manner the courts have ample power to strik~
down the same and that is an adequate safeguard against the arbitrary
exercise of power.
f
D It was urged that the selection merely based on the appraisal of
service record is arbitrary and it is bound to cause injustice as entries in
the character roll of members of the State Service depend upon the
whiJ!is of the recording officer: It is true that the service records con-
tain remarks which sometimes may not be fully justifie<!, but for that
· reason the scheme contained in the rules and regulations for promo-
E · tion cannot be characterised 1D1reasonable. There are various methods
of selection viz.· by competitive examination written test-cum-viva-
. voce, or by assessment of service records. For the purpose of recruit-
ment to the Indian Administrative Service from amongst the officers
· . of the State Civil Service, latter method namely, selection on the basis
of scrutiny of service records has been accepted. This is a well recog-
F nised system for making selection. In Parvez Qadirv: Union of India&
Ors., (1975) 2 SCR 432 while considering similar submission the Court
observed: '

- .''The pasi- performance of an officer' being one of the
criteria for making selection, the only way to adjudge their
.G suitability is by perusal of ccinfidential records. It is true
that confidential records do not sometimes give a true
picture due to the vagaries of the recording officer. The
human fallibility and want of objectivity in the superior
officer are factors which cannot be eliminated altogether.
For that matter one can ask what method is perfect. For
H this reason, certain safeguards have been provided in order

" _________ / '
/
R$. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.] 555

to make them as objective as possible. If there is an adverse A
entry against any officer that officer is given an opportunity
to explain. After the· explanation is given, the superior
officer as well as the Govt. ultimately decide whether that
remarks by the recording officer was justified or not, and if
it is not justified the Govt. can always order its deletion.
Sometimes vagary may enter into the service confidenfials, B
and if cannot be postulated that all superior officers who
have been empowered to finalise such entries will suffer
from any of those traits l;lecause the actions of the officer
concerned may not ,have any immediate impact upon him
and consequently his sense of objectivity will not be
dimmed or strained. In our view, often enough, the entries C
in confidential records are themselves an insignia of the
capacity and capability of the maker as a superior officer as •.
well as a commentary on the quality of the officer against
wJ:iom that confidential remark is· being noted. But those
who are charged with the duty to over see that these entries
are fair, just and objective quiie often do intervene and D
ractify any entry on representation being made against it at
the proper time. In these circumstances, we do not think
that the method of selection based on past performance as
disclosed by the confidential records is not the proper
method for adjudging suitability of the officer concerned." .
E
'
An ancillary argument was raised to demonstrate discrimination.
It was urged that the regulations do not lay down any guidelines for
categorisation of officers of the State Service into various categories
with the result the Committee even if acting bonafide may apply diffe-
rent standards at different times. The argument was further developed
that the Committee members change and, therefore, the same Com- F
mittee or differen't Committee is likely to apply its own standard in
judging the suitability of officers in different manner in different years
which would result into discrimination. This submission is founded on
the assumption that the Committee is free to categorise officers at its
sweet .will but that as,sumption is misconceived. Under Regulation 5
the Committee has to categorise officers on the basis of their service G
records into four categories as discussed earlier. The categorisation is
objectively made on the material available in the service tecords of the
officers. There is hardly any scope for applying different standards or
criteria at different times as the service records namely the character
roll entries would indicate the category of the officers as adjudged by
the authority recording annual confidential remarks. There is no dis- H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.
, .._
pute that in Punjab, under the State Govt's instruction the authority -+-.
A
competent to record annual remarks in the character roll of members
of the State Civil Service, has been directed to indicate the category of
the officer, e.g. whether the officer is "outstanding". "very good" or
"good''. The annual confidenLal remarks as available in the character
roll of officers of the State Civil Service therefore indicate the category
B to which a particular officer may belong. We were informed by
Counsel for the Union Govt. during the hearing of the cases that under
?""
instructions issued by the Union Govt. all the State Govts. are follow-
ing similar pattern in categorising members of the State Civil Service in
the annual remarks made in their confidential records. This has
brought uniformity in the ct,aracter roll entries. Since category of
members of State Civil Service is available in their service record, the ~
c Committee has no discretion to disregard the same. The Committee
has to categorise the members of the State Service on the basis of +-
entries available in their charncter roll and thereafter to arrange their
names in the proposed list in accordance with the principles laid down
in Regulation 5. There is no scope for applying different standard or
D test in preparing the list,"or to practise discrimination. We, therefore,
find no merit in the submission that Regulation 3 and 5 are discrimi-
natory and they violate Artick 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel urged that recommendations of the Selection
Committee which prepared t'1e select list for the year 1979 was illegal ~
E on account of the participation of Shri I.C. Puri, as he was not entitled
to be a member of the Selection Committee, his participation in the
deliberation of the committe'e was unauthorised. Regulation 3( 1) pro-
vides that a committee shall be constituted, consisting of the Chairman
of the Commission or any other member of the Commission represent-
ing it and other members as specified in corresponding column 3 of the
F schedule. The proviso to the Regulation lays down that except the
Chairman or the member of the Commission, no other person who is
not a member of the service shall be member of the Committee. It
~-
further provides that the Central Govt. may after consultation with the
State Government amend the schedule. Other members of the Com-
mittee as specified in Column 3 of the schedule to the regulation as
G applicable to the State of Pm jab specified the (I) Chief Secretary to
the Govt.; (2) Development Commissioner (3) Senior most Financial
Commissioner, (4) A nominee of the Govt. of India, not below the
rank of Joint Secretary as members of the Committee.
:r
Senior posts in the Indian Administrative Service not below the
H rank of Commissioner are determined in accordance with the schedule
R.S. DASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.I 557

to the Indian Administrative Service. (Fixation of Cadres Strength) A
Regulations 1954. The cadre regulation did not provide for any post of
Development Commissioner for the State of Punjab as a result of
which there was no separate post of Development Commissioner.
Instead, the Financial Commissioner was made Incharge. of the
Development Department and he was designated as Financial
B
Commissioner. (Development). Shri I.C. Puri who was posted as the
Financial Commissioner (Development) was the Incharge of Develop-
ment Department at the relevant time and as such he was appointed a
member of the Selection Committee and admittedly.he participated in
the deliberations of the Selection Committee which held its delibera-
tion on November 39, 1979 for preparing the select list of 1979. In the
affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab it has been asserted c
that the Development Department was under the charge of the Finan-
cial Commissioner who was designated as Financial Commissioner
(Development) and Shri Puri who was holding the rank of the
Commissioner was the Secretary Incharge of the Development
Department.
D
On behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners it was strenuously urged
that Shri Puri was not the Secretary Incharge of the Development
Department ot\ 30. ! 1.79. Instead Hardayal Singh was Incharge of the
Development Department as Special Secretary in the Department of
Rural Development, Panchyats, Agriculture and Forests. In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Govt. it is asserted that E
Hardayal Singh was merely posted Special Secretary to the Govt. He
was neither holding the rank of Commissioner nor he was the Secre-
tary Incharge of the Development Department. However, Hardayal
Singh was given the rank of Secretary simply to protect his special pay
in the time scale of selection grade in the Indian Administrative
Service. He was not Incharge of the Department as Secretary, instead F
he was working under over all control of Financial Commissioner
(Development) namely, Shri I.C. Puri. This finds support from the
note recorded by Hardayal Singh on 5.12.79 requesting the Chief Sec-
retary for allocation of work between the Financial Commissioner
(Development) and Special Secretary. The relevant note is available
on record. It is thus evident that Hardayal Singh was working under G
the over all control of Shri I.C. Puri who was the Financial Commis-
sioner (Development) and Secretary Incharge of Development
Department. The material placed on record leaves no room for any
doubt that Shri J.C. Puri designated as Financial Commissioner
(Development) was also discharging the duties and functions of the
H
Development c.ommissioner. He was, therefore, holding the dual
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.
....._
A charge as no separate post of Development Commissioner had been
sanctioned by the Govt. These facts clearly show that for all purposes
'
Shri Puri was working as Development Commissioner. As Financial
Commissioner (Developinent) he was exercising same powers and dis-
charging same functions which could be performed by a Development
Commissioner, therefore he was competent to participate in the delibe-
B rations of the selection committee. While considering this question ..,. .
we cannot be oblivious of the faci that at no stage any objection was
raised against functioning of Shri Puri as a ·member of the Seleckm
Committee or his participation in the deliberations. There is further no
allegations of ma/a fide or bias against Shri Puri. There is evidence on
record to show that recommend 3tions of the Selection Committee
•
~
c constituted under Regulation 3 were unanimous, which were scruti-
nised by the State Govt. and the Union Public Service Commissions
before the same were approved.

Learned Counsel placed str3ng reliance on the decision of this
1""·· -
Court in A. K. Kraipak's case. In that case initial recruitment to the
D lodian Forest Service was challenged. In pursuance of the Indian
Forest Service (Initial RecTUitmer.t) Regulations, 1966 a special Sdec-
lion Board was constituted for Selecting officers for appointment to
the Indian Forest Service, from officers of the forest department of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Acting Chief Conservator of
Forests of the State was a member of the Selection Committee which
E made recommendations for the recruitment, he participated in the
selection board's deliberations in preparing the list of selected candi-
dates in order of preference, although he himself was a candidate for
selection: The Court held that the participation of the Acting Chief
Conservator vitiated the recom::nendations made by the Selection
Board as there was conflict between the· Acting Chief Conservator's
F personal interest and his duty and further he was a Judge in his own
cause. The Court further held th3t taking into consideration probabi-
lily and ordinary course o( human conduct, there was reasonable
ground for believing that the Acting Chief Conservator was likely to ---'
have been biased. In these circumstances the Court held that the selec-
tion made by the Board could not be considered to have been made
G fairly and justly as. it was influenced by a member who was biased.
Principles laid down in Kraipak's case do not effect the validity of the
recommendations made for the preparation of select list of 1979 as
Shri J.C. Puri wa~ neither biased against any of the appellants/petition-
¥
ers, nor there was, conflict between his personal interest and duty. Shri
Puri had no interest in the inclmion or exclusion of a member of the
H State Civil Service nor he had any personal interest in preparing the
R:s. DASS ETC ETC v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.] 559

" _.. .. list. There is no allegation of bias or malice against Shri Puri, his A
participation in the meeting of the Selection Committee did not render
the select list of 1979 illegal.

Shri B.S. Khoji, learned counsel for Pritam Singh and other

. \
-<
'
petitioners in the writ petitions urged that Promotion Regulations 3, 5
and 7 are ultra vires rule 8 and the entire selection made in pursuance B
of the impugned Regulations are illegal. Rule 8( I) provides that the
Central Govt. may on the recommendations of the State Government
and in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with such
Regulations as the Central Govt. may frame after consultation with
the State. Governments and the Commission, recruit to the Indian I
Administrative Service persons by promotion from amongst the sub- c
stantive members of State Civil Service. According to the leamed.
counsel, Rule 8(1) confers power on the Central Govt. to make
recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from
amongst the members of the State Civil Service on the recommenda-
tions of the State Govt., in consultation with the Commission. How-
ever, Regulations 3, 5 and 7 rob the State Govt. of its power of making D
recommendation for recruitment to the service. The plea of ultra vires
can be sustained if Regulations 3, 5 and 7 arc inconsistent with Rule
8(1). In our opinion Rule 8(1) confers power on the Central Govt. to
make recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion
from amongst the members of the State Civil Service on the recom-
mendations of the State Govt. .in consultation with the Commission. It E
further contemplates that the recommendations of the State Govt. and
consultation with the Commission which is constitutional obligation as
envisaged by Art. 320 of the Constitution, would be in accordance with
regulations whicl) the Central Govt. may frame after consultation with
ihe State Govt. and Commission. Rule 8(1), therefore, contemplates
the State Govt's. recommendation and the consultation of the F
Commission in accordance with the regulations framed by the Central
Govt. The Central Govt. has framed promotion regulations which.
provide method and manner of selection. Regulation 3 provides for
constitution of selection committee to prepare list of suitable officers
in accordance with Regulation 5. The Jist so prepared is forwarded by
the State Govt. to the Union Public Service Commission along with G
records and the observations of the State Govt. in accordance with
Regulation 6. Thereafter the Commission considers the list under
Regulation 7. The Commission may make any change in the list
received from the .State Govt. and thereafter it may approve finally
with such modification as in its opinion it may be just and proper. The
list as finally approved by the Commission forms the select list of
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

A members of State Civil Service which ordinarily remains in force until
its review and revision. Regula! ion 9 lays down that the appointment
of members of State Civil Servic~ shall be made by the Centri'l Govt.
on the recommendations of the :itate Govt. in the order in which their
names appear in the select list. Io our opinion these regulations do not
in any manner impinge upon the powers of the State Govt. to make
B recommendations to the Central Govt. as contemplated by Rule 8.
There is, therefore, no merit in the petitioners' submission.

On behalf of Pritam Singh, Petitioner, it wasurged that the State
Government acted ma/a fide in deliberately delaying its comments to
the Commission on the list of 1930 and thereby it manipulated appoint-
C ment of Tejinder Singh, M.P. Mitra and Gurdev Singh. In'.order to
appreciate this submission it is necessary to refer to the facts which are
not disputed. The names of Tejinder Singh, M.P. Mitra and Gurdev
Singh were included in the select list approved for the ye~~ 1979, and
as such they were entitled to promotion during the period of currency
of that list. On December 31, 1980' Selection Committee constituted
D under Regulation 3 met to prepare fresh select list for the year 1980.
The list so prepared did not include the names of ~foresaid officers.
But before the 1980 list could be finally approved by the Commission,
the aforesaid officers were promote<! and _appointed to J.A.S. In the
background of these facts it was urged that the State Government
deliberately did not forward its comments-to the Union Public Service
E Commission on the proposed ~:elect Lisi of 1980 as a result of which,
delay was caused in the approval of the 1980 list. In the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the ~>late Government allegations regarding
•ma/a fide have been denied. NJ material has been placed before us to
substantiate the plea of mala fide. Merely, because the State Govern-
ment forwarded its recommendations with delay is not sufficient to
F justify inference that the delay was purposive with a view to grant
undue favour to the officers r.amed above. Regulations contemplate
preparation of select list each year. The process of Selection, prepara-
tion and its final approval in, olves participation uf three authoritie~
1

namely the Selection Commitlee constituted under Regulation 3, the
State Government and the lnion Public Service Commission. The
G records of all the eligible officers are scrutinized by the Committee,
State Government and the Commission before the Select List is finally
approved and if there is any difference between the authorities, con-
sultation between the State Govt. and the Commission is bound to
take place. These steps which are necessary for the approval of select
list are time consuming. In actual practice sometimes delay may be
H inevitable. As the select list is to be prepared each year the State
R.S. QASS ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA [SINGH, J.] 561

... J.-· Government should take action well in advance to avoid any delay. If A
undue delay is. caused in preparation of select list, it provides occasion
for suspicion against the authorities and it is likely to generate frustrn-
tion and heart burning among the members of the State Civil Service
which would obviously be detrimental to public administration. The
select list of 1979 which included the names of Tejinder Singh, M.P. B
Mitra and Gurdev Singh continued to be effective under Regulation
7(4) till another select list for the subsequent year was finally
approved. There is no dispute that the aforesaid officers were pro-
moted and appointed to I.A.S. before the approval of the select list for
the year 1980. Therefore no exception can be taken to the validity of
their appointment. We are, further of the opinion that delay made by
the State Government in forwarding its comments to the Union Public . C
Service Commission with regard to the 1980 list did not cause any
prejudice to Pritam Singh and other petitioners as none of them was
selected for inclusion in the 1980 list.

We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals and the writ peti-
D
tions. They are accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to
costs.

A.P.J. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.

I~

'