UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus HIRANYALAL DEV & ORS.

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus HIRANYALAL DEV & ORS.

The Tribunal erred in both considering the uncommunicated and subsequently expunged adverse remarks as valid and substituting its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee, which is exclusively empowered to make selection and categorization. The Tribunal should have directed reconsideration by the Selection Committee, not issued an appointment order.

Parties
Appellant: Union Public Service Commission; Respondent: Hiranyalal Dev; Appellant: State of Assam; Respondent: Sardar Pradeep Kar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Dated 17.2.1987
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion by Selection, Role of Selection Committee, Recording of Reasons for Non Selection, Supersession Concept
Administrative Law Service Law Promotion by Selection Role of Selection Committee Recording of Reasons for Non Selection Supersession Concept

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Public Service Commission

Appellant

Hiranyalal Dev

Respondent

State of Assam

Appellant

Sardar Pradeep Kar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Dated 17.2.1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Selection Committee erred in considering adverse remarks not communicated or subsequently expunged
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal can substitute its evaluation for the Selection Committee
  3. 3 If reasons must be recorded for non-selection or supersession in select list

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in both considering the uncommunicated and subsequently expunged adverse remarks as valid and substituting its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee, which is exclusively empowered to make selection and categorization. The Tribunal should have directed reconsideration by the Selection Committee, not issued an appointment order.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Selection Committee shall reconsider the impugned select list prepared in 1983 on the footing that adverse remarks against Hiranyalal Dev (respondent) which were subsequently expunged do not exist in the records.
  • Committee to decide whether Hiranyalal Dev or Sardar Pradeep Kar should have been appointed based on proper categorization per same standards used for others, ignoring the expunged remarks.