IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38312 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.432/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.K.JOSHWA,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU (VACB), PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPECIAL-A) DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION TO IPS,KERALA CADRE REP.BY OTS CHAIRMAN-CHAIRMAN,UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC),SHAJAHAN ROAD,NEW DELHI. 3. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC) REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,SHAJAHAN ROAD,NEW DELHI. 4. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIH MANTRALAYA,NEW DELHI - 110 001. 5. SRI.T.CHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. SRI.V.V.MOHANAN,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOZHIKODE (RURAL),VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 7. K.VIJAYA SHANKAR,SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE,MALAPPURAM. 8. SRI.T.V.KAMALAKSHAN,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,CBCID,KOZHIKODE. 9. SRI.M.N.JAYAPRAKASH,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),ALWAYE,ERNAKULAM. 10. SRI.M.WAHAB,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 11. SRI.P.T.NANDAKUMAR,MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. SRI.T.P.RAJAGOPALAN,COMMANDANT, KAPV BATTALLION,MANIYAR CAMP, PATHANAMTHITTA. 13. SRI.P.I.VARGHESE,COMMANDANT, STATE RAPID ACTION FORCE, PANDIKADU,MALAPPURAM. 14. SRI.K.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.38312 OF 2007- S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner was a Superintendent of Police (non I.P.S). He was considered for promotion to I.P.S in the ten vacancies of the year 2002. In the list of candidates considered, he was Rank No.30. The petitioner's final grading in the annual confidential reports for the relevant years was outstanding but, some of the selected candidates were having such grading only for a few years and for the remaining years, their grading was “very good” and in some cases, it was “average”. As per the Regulations 5(4) and 5 (5) of the I.P.S (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the candidates in the field of choice would be first graded as “outstanding”, then as “very good” and remaining as “good”. The candidates graded as outstanding will be arranged according to their seniority. Similarly candidates having the grades “very good” and “good” also will be arranged according to their seniority in the respective grades in the light of the aforementioned : 2 : regulations. The petitioner submits, if the said regulations were strictly followed, he would have been included among the candidates with the grading “outstanding”. In that event, since there were ten vacancies in 2002, he would have been included in the select list in that year. But, in this case, the selection committee graded the candidates including the petitioner only as “very good”. When those candidates were arranged, according to their seniority, the petitioner did not come within the first ten candidates and, therefore, he was not included in that select list. Feeling aggrieved by the said procedure followed, the petitioner represented before the competent authority and thereafter, moved the C.A.T by filing O.A.No.858/2004. The petitioner alleged legal malice on the part of the selection committee for not following the procedure prescribed under the relevant regulations. 2. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the original application. The Public Service Commission explained the procedure followed by them. It was submitted that they did not go by the final grading of outstanding given in the annual confidential reports. The selection committee analysed various parameters, based on which, the final grading was : 3 : given. They also took into account appreciation for meritorious performance and also other relevant orders. After the committee members have exchanged their views, they decided to award the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates only very good grading. This was done in good faith and also having regard to the relevant matters, it is submitted. The Tribunal called for the records and examined ACRs of the selected candidates and also that of the applicant, the petitioner herein. They found that the procedure followed was fair and a reasonable one. There was nothing illegal warranting interference with the same. Therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the select list and dismissed the O.A. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Alexander Thomas, reiterated the contentions of the applicant raised before the C.A.T. According to him, the procedure followed by the selection committee is improper. The petitioner and others having final grading in their annual confidential reports as outstanding should have been graded as outstanding candidates and placed at the top of the list , according to their seniority. We find it difficult to accept the said contention. If the selection is to be made only : 4 : going by the final grading in the annual confidential reports, the selection or rather promotion will be decided in effect by the controlling officers and not by the competent authority. If the selection committee feels it should not be led merely by the final grading but it should go into other parameters which led to the final grading and also other relevant materials independently, we find nothing illegal or irregular about it. The committee in doing so has acted within jurisdiction. There is no allegations of factual malice against the selection committee. They have acted in good faith also. The petitioner's grievance we notice has been considered by the C.A.T also after calling for the records and perusing the same. The Tribunal also upheld the procedure followed by the selection committee. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. We find nothing illegal or improper with Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal, warranting interference by us under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl