Case: BAIDYANATH YADAV Vs. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service ( the IAS) from amongst non-StateCivil Service officers ( non-SCS officers) for the Selection Year 2014. The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No. 1, Aditya Narayan Roy and Respondent No. 9 in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019, Ram Prakash Sahni ( Respondent No. 9), belonged to the Bihar Agricultural Service. The Department of Agriculture, along with other departments, was invited to recommend the names of two officials to the State Screening Committee for selection of ten persons to be recommended to the Union Public Service Commission ( the UPSC) for final selection. The Selection Committee of the Department of Agriculture, headed by the Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated 07.08.2014, considered the names of four officials of the department, being the Appellant, Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 9, and one Ravindra Kumar Verma, and recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were then placed before the minister concerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed that Respondent No. 1s name may be recommended. As a consequence, the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placing Respondent No. 1s name at Serial No. 3. Before the State Screening Committee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, the Appellant was mentioned at Serial No. 14, Respondent No. 9 at Serial No. 15, and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 16. The State ScreeningCommittee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten names for consideration to the UPSC, including the names of the Appellant and Respondent No. 9, but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant, the other being an official from another department. This was notified by the Department of Personnel Training vide notification No. 14015/4/2014-AIS(I)-B dated 22.01.20153.2 Respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellants appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to recommend Respondent No. 1s name to the State Screening Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC, for the UPSC to conduct a fresh assessment for his appointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in case of favourable recommendations3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1s application, noting that the departmental ministers order dated 11.08.2014 did not contain any finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the most meritorious candidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the non-inclusion of his name in the initial recommendation made by the Department of Agriculture. Thus, there was no illegality or mala fides in Respondent No. 1s name occurring at Serial No. 3 in the listforwarded to the State Screening Committee, contrary to his argument that his name should have occurred at the top since he was the most meritorious. The Tribunal further reasoned that even if Respondent No. 1s name had been at the top in this list, in the list prepared by the State Screening Committee he would still have figured only at Serial No. 14 instead of Serial No. 16, which was irrelevant, since the only pertinent aspect was that his name was considered along with other officials. The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1s application noting that his case was based on conjectures about being selected if his name had been recommended to the UPSC committee, and that directing the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC would amount to sitting in judgment over the evaluation of merit by the authorities3.4 Respondent No. 1 filed a writ application seeking the setting aside of the above order of the Tribunal, which was allowed by the High Court. The Court reasoned that the State Screening Committee had failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound to do, in light of its absolute power over the trajectory of the career of the aspirants to the IAS, and the mere presence of senior officers on the committee would not by itself guarantee objectivity and fairness in decision-making. Moreover, the Court held that since Respondent No. 1s name was the only one recommended to the UPSCthe previous year, which recommendation had remained in limbo, his name should have figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture. The Court noted that upon examining the manner of consideration of names, it was not satisfied of objectivity, fairness and the lack of consideration of extraneous reasons in the selection process, with efforts to keep Respondent No. 1 out of the process apparent at every stage3.5 The High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, directing that the State Screening Committee recommend Respondent No. 1s name to the UPSC within two weeks, and that the UPSC thereafter consider his case objectively. Such consideration would also determine the fate of the Appellant, whose inclusion into the IAS cadre would not create any right in his favour until the decision of the UPSC on Respondent No. 1s name. For the purpose of the consideration of Respondent No. 1s name, the post would be considered to be vacant for the year 2014. After the State Screening Committee made its recommendation, the UPSC would be expected to hold an interview and evaluation of Respondent No. 1 preferably within a period of six weeks. This lead the Appellant and the State of Bihar to approach this Court by way of the instant appeals.

Reasoning:
5.1 It is by now well-settled that the scope of such review is limited, and the Tribunal or Court cannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates5.3 It can be concluded from the above that it was not for the High Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates, and neither is it appropriate for us to do the same9.1 Additionally, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1, it appears from the records of the meetings of the State Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No. 1s name while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on the ground that his name had not been recommended by the departmental Selection Committee. However, the 1997 Regulations read with the relevant guidelines indicate that no fault can be found with this approach. Though the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that the departmental ministers approval was necessary for any recommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this did not confer any power upon him to recommend a name of his own accord. Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1s name being added to the list of two officials already recommended by the departmental committee, more so when only two names had been invited by the GAD, must be held to be irregular and in violation of the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. Moreover, in such ascenario, it cannot be said that there was any malice or bias leading to the non-consideration of Respondent No. 1s name by the State Screening Committee9.2 Moreover, we find ourselves in disagreement with the conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State Screening Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons9.3 As there is no such requirement mandating the disclosure of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, there is no doubt in our minds that the procedure adopted by the State Screening Committee cannot be faulted10.2 We find ourselves unable to agree with the above conclusion of the High Court. As per the letter dated 30.05.2013 from the GAD to the Department of Agriculture, the previous years recommendation of Respondent No. 1s name by the latter department had in fact been returned by the GAD for not being in consonance with the expected norms of recommendation. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that it is unclear which notings the High Court relied on to conclude that Respondent No. 1 had not been recommended because of his earlier recommendation, it is evident that the High Court erred in observing that Respondent No. 1s recommendation from the previous year had simply remained in limbo, and that his non-recommendation the next year was therefore suspect. Thus, we are of the view that there is no hint of arbitrariness, mala fide or bias in the recommendation of two other officers, including the Appellant, by the Department of Agriculture in 201411. In any case, we find that the direction issued by the High Court directing the State Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No. 1s name to the UPSC was completely without jurisdiction. Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant documents. As already observed above, it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee. Be that as it may, in light of the above discussion, we conclude that there is no case to direct the reconsideration of the seventeen candidates before the Screening Committee, or to interfere with the appointments already made for the Selection Year 2014.