Case: Mir Ghulam Hussain &amp; Ors Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

written at the close of each financial year and are required to be completed before the end of that year and any adverse entry made against an officer has to be communicated to that officer so that the officer concerned can make a representation about such remarks. It is alleged that in the particular year concerned i.e. 1968, the petitioners had not received any communication from the authorities which indicated that there was anything adverse against them. But after the selection had been completed and after the writ petition had been filed the petitioners Nos. 2, 20 and 25 received communications appertaining to their confidential rolls which showed the existence of certain adverse remarks against them. The suggestion is that the selection committee had considered in respect of these three officers certain remarks which could not have been finalised as they had not been communicated to the petitioners before September 1968. This complaint is one which does not appear in the petition. The complaint has been ingeniously construected by the petitioners counsel by piecing together an averment made in the petition with certain statements made in subsequent affidavits. In para 26 of the petition there is an averment that there was no adverse remark against the petitioners. The suggestion obviously sought to be made out at that stage was this that since there was nothing adverse against them, the petitioners were entitled to be selected.This claim is, of course, completely misconceived for the simple reason that promotion is not made on the basis of absence of complaint but on the basis of positive merit. Absence of adverse remarks is no criterion of the quality of an officer.In reply to this statement in the petition, however, Shri Bansi Lal Kaul in his affidavit treated the petitioners averment about non-communication of adverse remarks as a complaint and stated that the adverse remarks in all cases had been communicated to the petitioners who had made representations against the adverse entries and that the State Government thereafter had either rejected the representations or modified the entries. Taking advantage of this reply of the State Government the petitioners in a rejoinder have given a slight twist to their original stand and come out with a fresh allegation. They point out for the first time that petitioners Nos. 2, 20 and 25 had received communications regarding adverse remarks after the selection had been completed. The learned counsel made an ingenious argument out of this by raising a new contention that at least some adverse remarks which had not been communicated to these three petitioners were considered by the Selection Committee at the time of making the selection. This complaint, apart from being an afterthought is completely flimsy. The particulars regarding the adverse remarks have not been supplied and no attempt has been made to show that these remarks had been posted on the confidential rolls before the actual selection took place or that these confidential remarks had prejudiced the petitioners concerned.9. The fourth ground of complaint was that some officers who could not be considered for promotion to Indian Administrative Service have been selected by the Committee. The suggestion is that if eligibility had been correctly determined there would have been some vacancies against which some of the petitioners could have been absorbed.In our opinion if there is any complaint about the appointment or promotion of an officer who is not eligible under the rules to be promoted or appointed, the proper remedy is to make an application for the issue of a writ of quo warranto and since the petitioners have not done so, this particular complaint cannot be entertained in this petition.10. The last allegation of the petitioners is that the selection has been mala fide. Mala fide is sought to be proved by the fact that State Government had on 12 September 1968 added certain posts to the existing strength of the Senior Scale of the Service and that some of the respondents were confirmed in the vacancies created by such additions with effect from 1 August 1968. The intention behind this addition to the strength of Senior Scale of the Indian Administrative Service was to benefit those respondents who, the petitioners allege, are the favourites of Government. We are not disposed to take this plea of mala fide seriously. After all the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission was presiding over the deliberation of the Committee and there is and can be no allegation of mala fide against him or against the Union Public Service Commission.Under Rule 4 of the Kashmir Administrative Service Rules the State Government is competent to revise the cadre from time to time. It is under these rules that the Government revised the cadre strength partly by converting some temporary posts included in the temporary cadre strength to the permanent cadre strength and partly by adding some ex-cadre posts to the permanent strength of the Kashmir Administrative Service.We have no hesitation in accepting Shri Bansi Lal Kauls affidavit that these were all done in the exigencies of service. In any case, the revision of the cadre strength did not in any way affect the seniority or other rights of the petitioners and they have no grounds for complaint. It has been further pointed out by Shri Bansi Lal Kaul that it is on the basis of the revised notification that petitioners Nos. 10, 11, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 became eligible for being considered by the Selection Committee for inclusion in the list. Shri Kaul also tells us that the revised notification did not have the effect of omitting from the list of eligible officers any officer who would have otherwise been in that list. In these circumstances this allegation of mala fide is completely misconceived.11. We have now considered all the complaints of the petitioners . There is no substance in any of these complaints and the petition must, therefore, be dismissed. The rule is discharged, but we make no order as to costs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Shri Damley, the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission has himself rebutted this allegation in an affidavit in which he says that he reached Srinagar actually on 12 September 1968 and that the selection committee had two sessions on 13 September 1968. Shri Damley states that the total number of eligible officers was not 150 but 81. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir had furnished a list of 86 officers of which 5 were not found to be eligible for selection at all. He points out that it is not correct to say that the service records of all the eligible officers were scrutinised by him only on 13 September 1968. On the contrary, he says, the service records of 43 out of 81 eligible officers had been sent in advance by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to the Public Service Commission on 26 July 1968. These records had been received by the Union Public Service Commission on 9 August 1968 and placed before Shri Damley for his perusal on 10 September 1968. The records of the remaining 38 officers were made available to him when he reached Srinagar on 12 September 1968. In view of this affidavit of Shri Damley the petitioners complaint must be rejected. There was some feeble attempt on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioners to make out a case that even if the Chairman had perused all the records it was not possible for all the members of the committee to have perused them during the two sittings held at Srinagar on 13 September 1968. This is a new case not to be found in the petition and, besides, the Chairman himself has stated in clear and categorical language that the rival claims of all the eligible officers had been duly considered by the entire Selection Committee. We have no manner of hesitation in accepting this statement of Shriattention was drawn to a list of names annexed to the petition as annexure F in whichd the names of the persons who have not been selected are marked with a cross. In that list it appears that the names of some of the officers who have not been selected appear in groups. This, however, is no proof that the officers were rejected in groups. First, we do not know the basis on which the list in annexure F has been prepared. But even assuming that the list has been prepared strictly according to seniority, the mere fact that the names of some of the officers who have been rejected appear on that list consequently is no indication that they have been rejected in an arbitrary manner. In the counter-affidavit of Shri Bansi Lal Kaul, Under Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it has been stated clearly that the records of all the eligible officers were examined by the Selection Committee to determine their merit and suitability for inclusion in the select list. The selection committee consisted, among others, of the Chief Secretary of the State Government and two other super time-scale officers of the Indian Administrative Service of the State cadre. All these three members of the State Government had, we are told, first-hand knowledge of the suitability and performance of the officers whose cases were considered by the Committee. Besides, the performance of the officers was judged on the basis of the service records which it is contended, furnish a better guide for evaluation of the quality of an officer than a personal interview for a short duration could possibly have furnished. Shri Bansi Lal Kaul further states in paragraph 21 of his affidavit that officers at serial Nos. 1, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 of annexure F were not eligible for being considered by the selection committee as they had not completed eight years service in a post of a Deputy Collector or any post declared equivalent thereto on 1 January 1968. Certain other officers viz. officers at serial Nos. 26, 30, 34, 41, 43, 56, 59, 64, 72, 75 and 86 of annexure F had already crossed the age of 52 years and could not ordinarily be considered for inclusion under Regulation 4 (2) of the Regulation. When officers are excluded on such grounds it is not surprising that their names appear often in a bunch in that list. We accept this explanation of Shri Bansi Lal Kaul and are not prepared to entertain the counsels suggestion that the exclusion of a number of officers in consecutive order indicates an exercise of arbitrary and unguidedafter the selection had been completed and after the writ petition had been filed the petitioners Nos. 2, 20 and 25 received communications appertaining to their confidential rolls which showed the existence of certain adverse remarks against them. The suggestion is that the selection committee had considered in respect of these three officers certain remarks which could not have been finalised as they had not been communicated to the petitioners before September 1968. This complaint is one which does not appear in the petition. The complaint has been ingeniously construected by the petitioners counsel by piecing together an averment made in the petition with certain statements made in subsequent affidavits. In para 26 of the petition there is an averment that there was no adverse remark against the petitioners. The suggestion obviously sought to be made out at that stage was this that since there was nothing adverse against them, the petitioners were entitled to be selected.This claim is, of course, completely misconceived for the simple reason that promotion is not made on the basis of absence of complaint but on the basis of positive merit. Absence of adverse remarks is no criterion of the quality of an officer.In reply to this statement in the petition, however, Shri Bansi Lal Kaul in his affidavit treated the petitioners averment about non-communication of adverse remarks as a complaint and stated that the adverse remarks in all cases had been communicated to the petitioners who had made representations against the adverse entries and that the State Government thereafter had either rejected the representations or modified the entries. Taking advantage of this reply of the State Government the petitioners in a rejoinder have given a slight twist to their original stand and come out with a fresh allegation. They point out for the first time that petitioners Nos. 2, 20 and 25 had received communications regarding adverse remarks after the selection had been completed. The learned counsel made an ingenious argument out of this by raising a new contention that at least some adverse remarks which had not been communicated to these three petitioners were considered by the Selection Committee at the time of making the selection. This complaint, apart from being an afterthought is completely flimsy. The particulars regarding the adverse remarks have not been supplied and no attempt has been made to show that these remarks had been posted on the confidential rolls before the actual selection took place or that these confidential remarks had prejudiced the petitionersour opinion if there is any complaint about the appointment or promotion of an officer who is not eligible under the rules to be promoted or appointed, the proper remedy is to make an application for the issue of a writ of quo warranto and since the petitioners have not done so, this particular complaint cannot be entertained in thisfide is sought to be proved by the fact that State Government had on 12 September 1968 added certain posts to the existing strength of the Senior Scale of the Service and that some of the respondents were confirmed in the vacancies created by such additions with effect from 1 August 1968. The intention behind this addition to the strength of Senior Scale of the Indian Administrative Service was to benefit those respondents who, the petitioners allege, are the favourites of Government. We are not disposed to take this plea of mala fide seriously. After all the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission was presiding over the deliberation of the Committee and there is and can be no allegation of mala fide against him or against the Union Public Service Commission.Under Rule 4 of the Kashmir Administrative Service Rules the State Government is competent to revise the cadre from time to time. It is under these rules that the Government revised the cadre strength partly by converting some temporary posts included in the temporary cadre strength to the permanent cadre strength and partly by adding some ex-cadre posts to the permanent strength of the Kashmir Administrative Service.We have no hesitation in accepting Shri Bansi Lal Kauls affidavit that these were all done in the exigencies of service. In any case, the revision of the cadre strength did not in any way affect the seniority or other rights of the petitioners and they have no grounds for complaint. It has been further pointed out by Shri Bansi Lal Kaul that it is on the basis of the revised notification that petitioners Nos. 10, 11, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 became eligible for being considered by the Selection Committee for inclusion in the list. Shri Kaul also tells us that the revised notification did not have the effect of omitting from the list of eligible officers any officer who would have otherwise been in that list. In these circumstances this allegation of mala fide is completely misconceived.11. We have now considered all the complaints of the petitioners . There is no substance in any of these complaints and the petition must, therefore, be dismissed. The rule is discharged, but we make no order as to costs.