Holding

The selection list prepared by the Selection Committee is valid and conforms to the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.

Summary

A Selection Committee was constituted to select officers of the Bihar Administrative Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The Committee considered 264 officers, including those above the age of 54 under the provisos of Regulation 5(3), and prepared a list of 51 suitable candidates. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the selection, holding that only three times the anticipated vacancies plus 20% could be considered and that the presence of a committee member whose brother was a candidate vitiated the process, also alleging non‑application of mind. The Supreme Court examined the wording of Regulations 5(2) and 5(3) and held that the officers covered by the provisos are to be considered in addition to the normal zone of consideration, and that the brother’s participation did not invalidate the selections. It further found that the Committee had made a comparative assessment of confidential reports and therefore had applied its mind. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and upheld the validity of the Selection List.

Issues considered

How should Regulation 5(2) and the provisos of Regulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 be interpreted with respect to the ‘zone of consideration’ and inclusion of officers above 54 years?
Does the participation of a Selection Committee member whose brother is among the candidates vitiate the entire selection process?
Whether the Selection Committee failed to apply its mind by considering 264 candidates in a single day.

Legislation cited

Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955s. 5(1), s. 5(2), s. 5(3)
Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954s. Rule 8

Subjects

service lawpromotionselection committeeIndian Administrative Serviceregulation interpretationconflict of interestapplication of mind

Judgment

A RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH AND ANR ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

MARCH 27, 1996

B IA.M. AHMADI, CJ AND MRS. SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, J.]

S e1vice Law :

Indian Administrative Se1vice (Appointment by Promotion) Rq,•lia-
C tions, 1955 :
r
Regulation 5( I )(2)(3 f-Provisos-l!lteipretatioi; of-Bihar Administra-
tive Se1vicc-Officers orPromotion to illdian Administrative Se1vice-Seiec-
tion Committee fm~Selections made byHeld valid.

D Se1vice Law-Selection-Selection Committee-Consideration of 264
names Oil a single day-Non-application of mind-Held not establi1·hed Oil
facts.

Se1vice Law-Selection Committee-Brother of a candidate-Member \
E of Committee--<:andidate not selected-Held selections were not vitiated on ·'
accoum ofpa1ticipatioll of brother of calldidate.

A Selection Committee was constituted for selection of officers of the
Bihar Administrative Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative
Service. The number of anticipated vacancies for which selection was held
F wi!re 43. As per Regulation 5(2) of Indian Administrative Service (Appoint-
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the zone of consideration was lixed
at 153 (i.e. 43 vacancies plus 20%x 3). In addition to this, ollicers (a) whose
names were on the earlier Selection List in force (one such officer) (first
proviso to Regulation 5(3) and (b) officers who though above the age of 54
G were eligible under the second proviso to Regulation 5(3) because there
were no selections in the years 1991-92and1992-93 (110 such ollicers) were
included. The total number of ollicers, therefore, considered by the Selec-
tion Committee were 153+1+110, that is to say, 264. The selections were :,.
set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna holding that (i)
only three times the number of anticipated vacancies for the year plus 20%
H could have been considered as within the zone of consideration before the
964
y
'

RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH v. U.O.L 965

Selection Committee; the consideration of other officers under Regulation A
5(3) was contrary to the 1955 Regulations; (ii) the two provisos'to Regula•
lion 5(3) which require the Selection Committee to consider certain can-
' didates who may be above the age of 54 yea_rs, has to be interpreted as
applying only to the candidates who are within the zone ofconsidetation
as defined under Regulatilm 5(2) but who may have attained the age of 54
years. These candidates, if they fall within the proviso t<i Reb'lilation 5(3);
B
will have to be considered by the Committee; (iii) the proceedings of the
Selection Committee were vitiated on account of the participation of a
member of the Selection Committee because his brother was within the
·" zone of consideration although the latter has not been selected; a_nd (iv)
T there was non-application of mind by the Selection Committee in consider- C
ing. 264 names on a single day. Against the judgment of the Tribunal
appeals were preferred bef~re this Court.

Allowing the appeals and setting aside the jndgment of the Tribunal,
this Court
D
HELD :I. The Selection List prepared by the Selection Committee is
a valid Selection List and is in accordance with law. [971-G]
)
,.
2. According to the Tribunal; the zone of consideration should have
been confined to only iS3 officers. This interptetation is in the teeth of the E
expr~ss provisions of Regulation 5(2). While Regulation 5(2) provides that
the_ numher of officers'.~equired to be considered are three times the number
of anticipated vacancies plus· 20%,the proviso· to Regulation 5(2) lays down
that in computing the number of _officers who should be in the field of
consid~i-ation· und~r Regulation 5(2), the 'number of officers r~fe~red to in
sub-regnlatiim (3) shall he excluded. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 F
which confers.a right to be co~sidei-ed on certain State Civil Servants who
may have attained the age of 54 also does not <1ualify 'this right to be
considered by addingthat such a person shall be considered only if he is
within the zone of consideration under'Regulation 5(2). Clearly, therefore,
the .persons who a.re requir.ed to be considered for selection under Regula- G
tion 5(3) are in a~dition to the per.~ons wh<~ a~e rettUired to. be considered
under Regulation 5(2). In fact, this is how these recruitment regulations
have been interpreted over a number of years. (969-F-G, 970-A-C] ·

3. Th·e brother ,~fa candidate Was member of the Selection Commit-.
tee. But he was not selected. The seiection of' all other candidates· Was not H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A vitiated in any manner by this factor. [971-B]
4. The Selection Committee made an overall relative assessment of'
the coritidential report dossiers of the oflicers in the zone of consideration.
It has ~·not evaluated the confidential report dossier of an individual in
,.isolation. It \Vas after a comparative assessn1ent that the best candidates
B were put in the Selection List. Thus there is no merit in the contention that
the Selection Committee did not apply its mind while preparing the list of
otlicers. [971-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5123-25
of 1996 Etc.
c. T
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.95 of the Central Ad·
ministrativc Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 323, 351, 350 of 1994.

H.N. Salve, D.A. Dave, N.N. Goswami, Ranjit Kumar, Anu Mohla,
D Yatish Mohan, Vikash Singh, L.R. Singh, Gopal Singh, Navin Prakash, B.B.
Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anil Katiyar. and W.A. Qadri for the appear-
ing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E MRS SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave Granted.
' 1

The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 28th of July,
1995 as a result of which the Tribunal has set aside the selection made of
. the .Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994 of officer> of the Bihar
F Adn1inistrative Service for promotion to the Indian Adn1inistrative Service.

The Tribunal by its impugned order set aside the entire selection
made at
the meeting of the Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994
on an interpretation of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations, 1955, holding that only three times the number. of
G anticipated vacancies for the year plus 20% could have been considered as
within the zone of consideration before the Selection Committee. The
consideration of other officers under Regulation 5(3) was contrary to the
said regulations. It also said that the proceedings of the Selection Commit·
tee were vitiated on account of the participation of one Shri S.N. Dubey
H as a member of the Selection Committee because his brother was within
RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH"· U.O.I. (MRS. SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, J.) 967

the zone of consideration although the brother'has not been selected. And A
lastly the Tribunal has said that there was non-application of mind ~y the
Selection Committee in considering 264 names on a single day.

The Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955, have been framed by the Central Government in con-
sultation with the State Governments and the Union Public Service Com- B
mission under sub-rule (l) of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954. The relevant Regulation which requires con-
sideration is Regulation 5. The material provisions of Regulation 5 are as 0
follows :

nRegulatiqn 5;
c
Preparation of a list of suitable Officers -
1

(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at inte.rvals not exceed-
ing one year and prepare a list of such members of the State Civil D
Service. as arc held by them to be suitable for promotion to the
service. The number of members of the State Civil Sei-vice to be
i included in the list shall be calculated as the number of substantive
) vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of 12 months,
commencing from the date of preparation of the list in the posts E
available. for them under rule 9 of .the Recruitment Rules plus
twenty percent of such ~umber or two whichever is greater.
,.
E.xplana.tion - In case of joint cadres a separate select list shall
be prepared in respect of each State Civil Service, the size of each
selec.t list- being <letern1i,ned in the n1anner indicated above. F

(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion in the said list, the
cases of members of th.e State Civil Services in the order of
seniority in that service of a number which is .equal to three times
the number referred to in sub-regulation (.!).
G

Provided further that.in computing the number for inclusion.in
the field of consideration, the number of officers ref~rred to in
sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded : H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A

(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the members
of the Slate Civil Service who have attained the age of 54 years on
the first day of April of the year in which it meets.

B Provided that a member of the State Civil Service whose name
appears in the select list in force immediately before the date of
the meeting of the Committee shall be considered for inclusion in
the fresh list, to be prepared by the Committee even if he has in
the meanwhile attained the age of 54 years.
c Provided further that a member of the State Civil Service who
has attained the age of fifty four years on the first day of April of
the year in which the Committee meets shall be considered by the
Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of
April of the year or of any of the years immediately preceding the
D year in which such meeting is held but could not be as no meeting
Of the Committee \Vas held during such preceding year or years. 11

Under Regulation 5 (l) the number of officers who are to be in- ,,.
cluded in the list of suitable officers prepared by the Selection Committee
is specified as the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course
E of the period of 12 months plus 20%. Under Regulation 5(2), the number
of officers required to be considered are three times the number which is
to be finally included in the list. The number of officers required to be
considered under Regulation 5(2) for selection in the list may be referred
to as officers within the zone of consideration.
F
Persons above the age of 54 years on the first day of April of the year
in which the Selection Committee meets are not eligible for being con-
sidered. Therefore, they are not within the zone of consideration. This is
set .out in the first part of Regulation 5(3). The first proviso to Regulation
5(3), however, states that a member of the State Civil Service whose name
G appears in the immediately preceding Select List in force shall be con-
sidered for inclusion in the fresh list, even if he has, in the meanwhile,
attained the age of 54 years. The second proviso to Regulation 5(3) slates
that if during any immediate preceding year/years, a person was eligible
for consideration but could not be considered because no-meeting of the
H Selection Committee was held that year, such a per;,on will also be con-
RAMANAND PRASADS!NGHv. U.0.1. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,.T.J 969

side red by the Selection Committee even \hough he may have, ·in the A
,.. meanwhile, attained. the age of 54 years. In other words, candidates who
would have been "'itllin the zone of consideration if the Selection Commit-
t~e has met during the year but .who kist the chance because the. Selection
C~mmittee did not meet are given a chance to be considered at the first
available opportunity ~Ven though they may have in the ~eanwhile ?llaincd B
the age of.54 years.

The Tribunal has held that the two provisos to Regulation 5(3) which
require the Selection Committee to consider certain candidates who may
be above the age of 54 years, has to be interpreted as -~pplying only·to the
candidates who are within the zone of co'!sideratio11. ,as defined under C
Regulation 5(2) but who may have attained the age of 54 years. These
candidates, if they fall within. the proviso to Regulation 5(3), will have to
. be_ considered by the Committee. We. have to consider whether. this is a
correct interpretation of [legulations 5(2) and _5(3),

D
In the present case, the number of anticipated vacancies for which
selection was held, were 43. As per Regulation 5(2) the zone of considera-
; tion was fixed al 1)3 (i.e. 43 vacancies plus 20% x 3). In addition to this,
) officers (a) whose names were on the earlier Selection List in force (one
such 'officer) (first proviso to Regulation 5(3) and (b) officers who though
above the age of 54, were eligible under the second proviso to Regulation E
5(3) because there were no selections in the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 (110
such officers) were included. The total number of officer, therefore, con-
sidered by the Selection Committee were 153+1+110, that is· to say, .264
offiCerS. · "- ~ .

According to' the Tribunal, the· zone of consideration should have
been confined to only 153 officers. This interpretation is in the teeth of the
express provisions of Regulation 5(2). While Regulation 5(2) provides that
the -number of officers required to be considered are. three times the
number of anticipated vacancies plus 20%, the proviso to Regulation· 5(2)
lays down that in. computing the number of officers who· should be in the G
field of consideration u~der Rcgulaiion 5(2), the nu'mber of· officefs
i
. referred" to in· sub-regµl~tion (3) shail be excluded. In othbr words, in the
present case, 153 officeis '.Yhl) arc to be included in the ioO.e .llf coi1sideta·
tion .wiil be after excluding' officers ·who qualify under ·Regulati<;n 5(3). _
Ther'efore, 153 officers who are to be ~onsidered are allier than. those · H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A falling under sub-regulation (3).
Sub-regulation (3) o'. Regulation 5 which confers a right to be
considered on certain Stale Civil Servants who may have allained the age
of 54 also does not qualify this right to be considered by adding that such
a person shall be considered only if he is within the zone of consideration
B under Regulation 5(2).

Clearly, therefore, the persons who arc required to be considered for
selection under Regulation 5(3) are in addition lo the persons who are
required to be considered under Regulation 5(2). In fact, this is how these
C recruitment regulations have been interpreted over a number of years. The
Union Public Service Commission which issues instructions regarding the
manner in which list of officers is to be prepared for consideration by the
Selection Committee and the docu~ents and information which are re-
quired to be submitted to the Union Public Service Commission for selec-
tion of such officers clearly sets this out in clause 3( d) of the Instructions:
D
Clause 3(d) :

"Officers who are over 54 years as on 1.4.1993 are ordinarily not
considered. However, (i) if their names appear in the previous
.Select List or (ii) if no Selection Committee Meeting was held in
E the previous year(s) when he was eligible, then his case will be
considered by the current selection committee Meeting. For this
purpose his name should figure in the proper place in the Eligibility
List and his case will be considered only if his name falls within
the required zone of consideration calculated according to vacan-
F cies. Howcvcr lhc names of such officers will not be counted in
1

the normal zone and they will be taken as extra to the required
number of 3 times the size of the Selection List."

The zone of selection, therefore, under the Regulations consists of three
parts; (1) officers who fall within Regulation 5(2) after excluding all officers
G falling under (2) and (3) : (2) officers above the age of 54 who are "carried
forward" from the. earlier Selection List in force and; (3) officers above the
age of 54 who have been deprived of their chance of being considered due
to non-holding of meetings of the Selection Committee. All these are to be
considered by the Selection Committee. The Tribunal was, therefore, not
H right in holding that only persons covered by Regulation 512) without any
RAMANAND PRASAD SINGHv. U.O.J. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR. J.J 971

.exclusion are eligible for being co~sidered by the Selection Committee. A
The second ground of challenge to the selection is that one S.N.
Dubey should not have been~ member ofthe Selection Committee because
his brother was one of the 264 candidates being considered for selection.
The brother bas, in fact, ~ot been selected.by the Selection Committee. We
fail to see how the selection of all oth')r candidates is vitiated in any manner B
by this factor.

The last contention relates to non-application of mind by the Selec-
. tion Committee to the task before it because it is contended that the
Committee considered 264 candidates in one day in order to prepare a .list C .
of 51 candidates. The State of Bihar and the Union Public Service Com-
mission in their affidavits/written statements have clearly set out that the
confidential service records of all the candidates ·in the zone of considera-
tion ·are scrutinized long prior to the holding of the Selection Committee's
meeting. The committee applies its mind to the service records and makes
its own assessment of the service records of the candidates marking them D
as outstanding, very goods, good and so on. The Selection Committee does
not necessarily adopt the same grading which is given by the Report-
,. ing/Reviewing Officer iri respect of each of the candidates. In fact the
) Selection Committee makes an overall relative assessment of the confiden-
tial report dossier this comparative assessment that the best candidates are E
put in the Select List. In view of the affidavit so filed, there is rio ·merit in
the contention that the Selection Committee <lid not apply its mind while
preparing the list of 51 officers. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in
setting aside the selection made by the Selection Committee at its meeting
of 30.th of March,.1994.
Q F
The appeals a~e, therefore, allowed. Thejudb'ffient and order the of
Tribunal is .set aside and. the Select List prepared by the- Selection C~m
mittee at its meeting held on 30th of March, '1994 is upheld as a valid Select
List prep~red in accordance with the i;,dian Administrative Service (Ap-
pointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1953 and in_ acco;d~nce with law. G
There will be no order as to costs. •

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

"