CWP No. 13496 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 13496 of 2010 Date of decision 2 .8.2010 Brij Bhushan Kaushik ... Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohar Sharma ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') while disposing of OA No. 805 HR of 2008. In his Original Application, the petitioner has challenged the induction of Shri Pardeep Kasni, an H.C.S. Officer into Indian Administrative Service alleging that the Departmental Promotion Committee concerning the quota post of State Civil Services has held its proceedings in flagrant violation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 (for brevity 'the Regulation') in respect of the vacancies for the year 2008. The Tribunal also considered the allegation of mala-fide post-poning the DPC to achieve some ulterior object aimed at manipulation of service record of private respondents like Pardeep Kasni and Rohtash CWP No. 13496 of 2010 2 Kharab, respondent nos. 6 and 16. In para 17, the aforesaid allegations have been considered and repelled which reads as under: “ There is no doubt that for consideration of the case of eligible officers for promotion, the Selection Committee is required to take into account the latest information/documents furnished by the State Govt. with regard to disciplinary/criminal enquiry proceedings pending against any officer or a pending representation against the adverse remarks, integrity certificate etc. etc. In the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 it has been clarified that the Selection Committee which had met on 11th and 18th October, 2008 had considered the eligible officers on the basis of such latest information/documents furnished by the State Govt. but no officer was included provisionally in any of the selection lists. With regard to postponement of the Selection Committee Meting from 11.12.2008 to 18.12.2008, the said respondent has clarified that on 11.12.2008 the Committee could not complete its proceedings and had decided to meet on a future date and, thus met on 18.12.2008 and finalized the selections. On this basis, the allegations made by the applicants is found to be baseless as we find no illegality if the Selection Committee has taken note of the latest information with regard to the service record of the candidates relating to expunction of adverse remarks in ACRs or upgraded ACRs or clean chit given in some case against private respondents by the concerned authority.” The Tribunal further held that the selection committee consisted of CWP No. 13496 of 2010 3 quite senior officers of the Central Government and the State Government; and no allegations of mala-fide have been levelled against those officers. Placing reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan AIR 1990 SC 434 that the Courts cannot act as appellate authority over the recommendations made by the selection committee unless there are allegations of proven malafides or such a wanton disregard to the rules that no reasonable person would have proceeded in this manner. Accordingly it has been held that it is not the function of the Courts to hear appeals against the decisions of the Selection Committee and scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The Selection Committee which has expertise on the subject has to decide the relative merit and the Court is not armed with any such expertise. “The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proven malafide effecting the selection......” On facts it has been found that the petitioner has been duly considered for the vacancies of year 2008 but his grading was lower than that of respondent no.6 and he could not be promoted. The Tribunal has perused the record and photo copies of the ACR have been taken on record of the Tribunal . It has been concluded by the Selection Committee that when the service record of the petitioner was compared to the candidates like respondent no.6, has succeeded in seeking entry to IAS Service then he is relatively meritorious . Mr. R.K.Malik, learned senior counsel has argued that on comparison of ACR of the petitioner vis.a.vis respondent no. 6 for the last five years preceding the year 2008 it would show that he has better record CWP No. 13496 of 2010 4 than respondent no.6. He has drawn our attention to photo copies of the original record to which reference has been made by the Tribunal. He has infact invited us to revise the view of the Selection Committee by recording a finding that petitioner should have precedence over the selected candidate like respondent no.6. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that ACR may constitute one of the various factors which may be considered for the assessment of the officer. According to Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations it is overall relative assessment of the service record which is to be kept in view. The regulation does not contemplate rewarding of marks for 'Outstanding' or 'V.Good' reports so as to enable us to find out that objective method if any mistake has crept in. The committee appears to have done over all assessment of their record. A glance at the record of the petitioner would show that his ACR are comparable with that of respondent no.6 and the Tribunal has rightly observed that the Courts cannot sit as appellate authority over the view taken by the Selection committee which is comprised of senior officers of the Central Government or State Government especially when there is not even allegation of bias against any one of them. We are not inclined to admit the petitioner. It is bereft of any merit. Accordingly the petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 2 .8.2010 Judge okg