IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13112 of 2006 SHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Additional Advocate General-II For the Union of India : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Central Government Counsel ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 26th August, 2008. This is second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner. Prior to the Original Application (O.A. 613/2000) from which the present writ petition arises, the petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application (O.A. 131/93) raising the grievance that his name ought to have been recommended in 1987 select list of officers for promotion to Indian Police Service. That Original Application (O.A. 131/93) came to be disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 17th September, 1999, whereby the respondents were directed to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee to review the case of the applicant for his inclusion in the select list of 1987 of Bihar Police Service Officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service within six - 2 - months from the date of communication of this order to them. In the light of the order dated 17th September, 1999, the Review Selection Committee was constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The Review Selection Committee met on 15th May, 2000 and examined the service record of the petitioner up to the year 1986-87. After reviewing the adverse remarks from the period 01.04.1984 to 18.07.1984 and for the year 1986-87 (which have been expunged), the Review Selection Committee assessed the petitioner as “Good” on an overall assessment of his performance accordingly. Only those candidates who were granted “Very Good” were included in the select list of 1987, the petitioner, who was assessed as “Good” only was not recommended by the Review Selection Committee. 2. The petitioner put in issue the decision of the Review Selection Committee by filing fresh Original Application (O.A. 613 of 2000). As indicated above, the said original application has been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 31st August, 2006. 3. The counsel for the petitioner raised before us the same contentions which were advanced before the Tribunal that the petitioner’s case was not considered in comparison with those officers, who were included in the select list of 1987. He would submit that the adverse entries, which were subsequently expunged and the entries which were received subsequent to the first meeting of the Selection Committee were also not taken into consideration. He - 3 - would submit that on the basis of comparative chart of A.C.Rs. of Shri A.S.Siddiqui, Shri K.P.Singh, Shri Vishwanath Ojha and the petitioner from the years 1976-77 to 1986-87, the petitioner ought to have been assessed at least “Very Good” as these three officers were assessed. 4. We are afraid the submissions of counsel for the petitioner do not merit acceptance. 5. The Review Selection Committee was bound by the order dated 17th September, 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal pursuant to which the said Committee was constituted. It could not have expanded or enlarged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. We deem it proper to reproduce the operative order of the Tribunal dated 17th September, 1999. It is thus: - “……..The respondents are hereby directed to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee to review the case of the applicant for his inclusion in the Select List of 1987 of Bihar Police Service Officers for promotion to the IPS within six months from the date of communication of this order to them. …” 6. A careful reading of the aforesaid order would show that there was no direction to the Review Selection Committee to consider the petitioner’s case in comparison with the other officers. The case of the petitioner was required to be examined by the Review Selection Committee on the basis of his service record up to 5th December, 1987, and that is what they did. The Review Selection - 4 - Committee has recorded in its minutes and there is no justifiable reason to disbelieve that it had examined the service record of the petitioner up to the year 1986-87. Any subsequent expunction of remarks could not have been taken into consideration by the Review Selection Committee. If upon over all assessment of his performance on the relevant date, as reflected from the said record, the Review Selection Committee assessed the petitioner as “Good”, we are afraid neither the Tribunal nor this Court can substitute the assessment made by the Review Selection Committee. The submissions of the counsel are not well founded. The Review Selection Committee acted in accord with the order of the Tribunal dated 17th September, 1999. 7. We do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in consideration of the matter. 8. Writ petition is devoid of any substance and is dismissed with no order to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-