B.N Jaya Simha, Vice-Chairman:— This is an application filed by a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Police Service seeking inclusion in the select list for selection of Indian Police Service from the year 1984 on wards. The applicant joined the Andhra Pradesh Police Service in February 1977 after passing the competitive examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. If his prior military service is taken into account he is deemed to have been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police from 1.3.1970 and he became eligible for promotion to Indian Police Service in 1984. When the select list was finalised in the month of December 1984, his name was not included among those selected for promotion for the Indian Police Service. The applicant states that elimination of his name creates suspicion and throws doubt that the Review Committee followed seniority rather than merit in making the selection. He also states that this is obvious from the fact that two of the officers Mr. G. Alfred and R. Seetha Rama Rao who was rated ‘outstanding’ in the earlier reviews and placed in the select lists of 1982 and 1983 superceding their batch-mates, had not been given any higher placements in the selection list of 1984. The applicant says that throughout he had a Very Good record and received appreciations from his senior officers. The applicant also was awarded the “Uttama Seva Pathakamu” in the year 1987 vide Order No. GO. Ms. No. 141 dt. 28.3.1987 for his continuous distinguished and outstanding service. The applicant states that the very process adopted by the Review Committee to categorise the officers, who are eligible and fit for promotion without any guidelines itself suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and in the absence of any objective criteria for categorising the eligible officers into ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’ and ‘unfit’, it offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He also contends that merely on the basis of his Confidential Report, he ought to have been categorised as ‘Very Good’.

2. The Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a Counter denying the claims of the applicant for inclusion in the select list.

3. They state that the applicant himself cannot be a judge of his own performance. It is also stated that the Selection Committee considered the applicant and select list was drawn on the basis of the relative merit of all the Officers who were in the field for consideration.

4. The Union Public Service Commission - Respondent No. 3, has also filed a counter in which it is stated as follows:

“xx xx xx xx

(ii) First, the Selection Committee has no discretion to disregard the category in the character roll of each eligible officer for classifying him as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, and ‘Unfit’. All the State Governments were following the same pattern of categorising the Officers in their character rolls under the instructions of the Union Government. Further, within each of the four categories inter-se seniority in the State Civil Service was to be observed. Then, the order of promotion gave priority to those in the ‘Outstanding’ category followed by those in the ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ categories. In the light of all this with ‘merit’ as the only criterion as seen from the service records, since a junior can be more meritorious than a senior, the Supreme Court held that the promotion of a junior in preference to a senior does not amount to Supersession.

(iii) Secondly, the Selection Committee is constituted by high ranking responsible officers presided over by the Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission. The recommendations of the Committee are scrutinised by the State Government and if it finds any discrimination in the Selection it can refer the matter to the Union Public Service Commission with its recommendations.

(iv) The Union Public Service Commission is under legal obligation to consider the views of the State Government alongwith the records of the officers and then approve the select list.

(v) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Court that the regulations did not violate the fundamental right to equality, equal treatment in the matter of Government employment or protection against arbitrariness. The State Civil Service members had no vested legal right to be included in the Committee's list and the fundamental right to equal treatment in Government employment did not required reasons for non-selection. Principles of natural justice also did not apply to such selections.”

5. We shall heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. B. Siva Reddy and Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Mr. K. Nagaraja Rao. We had also heard Mr. M.P Chandramouli, Special Counsel for the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, on the last occasion when the matter came up for hearing. Learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to a decision of this Bench of the Administrative Tribunal In T.A 849/86 (K. Ch. Venkata Reddy v. Union of India). The non-selection of a State Police Officer to the Indian Police Service for the year 1985 was the subject matter of T.A 849/86. The applicant is also questioning his non-selection for the year 1985. He argued that the decision rendered by this Bench in T.A 849 of 1986 would apply in toto to this case.

6. In T.A No. 849/1986, we had taken into consideration the following observations of the Supreme Court made in R.S Das v. Union of India (1986 Supp SCC 617 : AIR 1987 SC 593):

“29. An ancillary argument was raised to demonstrate discrimination. It was urged that the regulations do not lay down any guidelines for categorisation of officers of the State Service into various categories with the result the Committee even if acting bonafide may apply different standards at different times. The argument was further developed that the Committee members change and, therefore, the same Committee or different Committee is likely to apply its own standard in judging the suitability of officers in different manner in different years which would result into discrimination. This submission is founded on the assumption that the Committee is free to categorise officers at its sweet will but that assumption is misconceived. Under Regulation 5 the Committee has to categorise officers on the basis of their service records into four categories as discussed earlier. The categorisation is objectively made on the material available in the service records of the officers. There is hardly any scope for applying different standards or criteria at different times as the service records namely the character roll entries would indicate the category of the officers as adjudged by the authority recording annual confidential remarks. There is no dispute that in Punjab, under the State Government's instruction the authority competent to record annual remarks in the character roll of members of the State Civil Service, has been directed to indicate the category of the officer, e.g,. whether the officer is ‘outstanding’, “verygood” or “good”. The annual confidential remarks as available in the character roll of officers of the State Civil Service therefore indicate the category to which a particular officer may belong. We were informed by Counsel for the Union Govt, during the hearing of the cases that under instructions issued by the Union Government all the State Govts., are following similar pattern in categorising members of the State Civil Service in the annual remarks made in their confidential records. This has brought uniformity in the character roll entries. Since category of members of State Civil Service is available in their service record, the Committee has no discretion to disregard the same. The Committee has to categorise the members of the State Service on the basis of entries available in their character roll and thereafter to arrange their names in the proposed list in accordance with the principles laid down in Regulation 5. There is no scope for applying different standard or test in preparing the list, or to practise discrimination. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission that Regulations 3 and 5 are discriminatory and they violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

7. We had observed in T.A 849 of 1986 that:

“The minutes do not disclose the procedure adopted by the Committee in grading the Confidential Reports for each year for each officer, the common standard/test adopted by them for awarding the gradings to each officer. It is only then that the Committee can proceed with the classification of the eligible officers as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good” or “un-fit”, on an overall relative assessment of their service record. Where the Reporting/Reviewing Officer, who are officers who have personal knowledge of the work and performance of the officers concerned, do not give the “grading” in the Annual Confidential Reports, the task of the selection committee indeed becomes onerous and the minutes ought to disclose the procedure/standards tests applied by them. It is only then that its selection can satisfy the test of objectivity, as opposed to subjective evaluation. This was the very apprehension expressed before the Supreme Court in Das's case. Where, in the Annual Confidential Reports, the Reporting/Reviewing Officers have not given the gradings and the task of assigning the grading has to be performed by the Selection Committee, it would be necessary for the selection Committee to indicate the procedure and the standards/tests adopted by them in grading the Annual Confidential Reports for each year for every officer for the number of years of confidential reports it proposes to consider and how the committee has proceeded to make an overall relative assessment of their service record.

17. Sri Suryanarayana, learned Counsel for the applicant desired that we should ourselves compare the confidential reports of the applicant with those who have been graded “Very Good” and award the grading to the applicant. We do not consider that it is appropriate for us to do it. As explained in the preceding, paragraphs, it is for the Selection Committee to adopt a uniform standard and ensure that its uniformity is continued year after year. For the reasons discussed by us above, we consider it necessary to direst the Selection Committee to consider the case of the applicant afresh in the light of the observations made by us above keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court extracted above. The Committee has to adopt a procedure which will not result in applying different standards or tests or any discrimination. The Committee will have to consider year-wise confidential reports of each officer and applying the same standard/assign a grading (in reports where the reviewing/reporting officer has not himself given a grading), thereafter prepare the select list.

We also direct that non-issuance of integrity certificate shall not be taken against the applicant and the integrity shall be judged only on the basis of the entries in the Confidential Reports. We further direct that the Selection Committee shall meet within two months from the date of receipt of this Order and complete the review. The result of such review shall be communicated to the applicant.”

8. Shri Chandra Mouli, Special Counsel for State Government, had argued that no instructions have been issued to the Andhra Pradesh State Government by the Central Government in regard to writing of the Confidential Reports of the State Civil Sendee Officers/State Police Officers/State Forest Officers and in regard to giving them various gradations or categorisations. He, therefore stated that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R.S Das v. Union of India cannot be differentiated on the ground that the State Governnent have not implemented the instructions of the Government of India. We do not see how this contention of the Learned Counsel for the State Government can be supported in view of what is being stated in the counter filed by the Union Public Service Commission (3rd respondent). The Chairman of the U.P.S.C or one of the Members nominated by the Chairman is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. At para 3 above, we have given an extraction from the counter filed on behalf of the third Respondent. It is stated therein that the Selection Committee has no discretion to disregard the category in the Character Roll of each eligible officer classifying him as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ and that all State Governments were following the same pattern of categorisation of the officers in their character rolls under the instructions of the Union Government.

9. As will be observed from the para 29 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, the categorisation of the members of the State Civil Service will be available in their service record and the Committee has no discretion to disregard the same. Where such categorisation is not done by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, then the apprehensions expressed that the Selection is likely to be arbitrary becomes indeed real. It is for this reason that this Tribunal had held in T.A 849 of 1986 that if in the Annual Confidential Reports, the Reporting and Reviewing Officers have not given the gradings, the task of assigning the grading has to be performed by the Selection Committee, that it would be necessary for the Selection Committee to indicate the procedure and the Standards/Tests adopted by them in grading the Annual Confidential Report for each year for every officer for the number of years of confidential reports it proposes to consider and as to how the Committee has proceeded to make an over-all relative assessment of their service record. In this context, it will not be irrelevant to extract the observations made by Hon'ble Mr. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in R.S Das v. Union of India (1986 Supp SCC 617 : AIR 1987 SC 593): which reads as follows:—

“4. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that it was felt difficult to record reasons in the prescribed manner as laid down by this Court in the said decision and the question was considered by a Conference of Chief Secretaries in May, 1976 and was further considered. The Committee recomnended that the system of categorisation of officers for promotion to the ligher post should be followed in case of All India Service also and thereafter the categorisation as noted above was introduced in consultation with the State Governments. Indeed the amended provision Regulation 5 minimised the role of seniority in the process of selection and importance and primacy was given to merit. This indeed is a laudable object and helps in having the best for the country. It is also true that if selection is made on merit alone for promotion to higher service, selection of such an officer though unior in service in preference to his senior does not really amount to supesession. If promotion is made on merit alone, the senior officer per se has io legal right to promotion and if promotion is made on merit, it cannot be said that a senior officer has been superseded. It has been emphassed that the categorisation is done on the service record. This has also been emphasised that such categorisation is done on the service record including confidential character rolls as maintained by senior officers holding high positions. It is, therefore, according to my learned brother, sufficient safeguard against arbitrary categorisation and misuse of power. I have my reservations on this aspect though I accede the postion that in the absence of any other practicable solution, this is perhaps a sufficient safeguard and perhaps a practical way of facing a rather delicate task.”

10. In view of the fact that the confidential reports are not maintained in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India, for whatever may be the reason, the safeguard envisaged by the Supreme Court is not to be found in the State of Andhra Pradesh. We, therefore, direct the Selection Committee to consider the case of the applicant afresh in the light of the observations made by us above keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court extracted above. The Committee has to adopt a procedure which will not result in applying different standards or tests or any discrimination. The Committee will have to consider year wise Confidential Reports of each Officer and applying the same standard/assign a grading (in reports where the reviewing/reporting officer has not himself given a grading) and thereafter prepare the Select List. The Committee shall do so within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

11. With these directions, the application is disposed of. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

12. Application disposed of.