SAILENDRA NATH TALUKDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.98 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 136 of 1997 dismissing the Original Application (OA) filed by the present writ petitioner rejecting the challenge made by him to the selection made by the selection committee for the purpose of promotion of State Police Service officer to the Indian Police Services under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. (in short 1955 Regulation).

(2.) The writ petitioner filed O.A. No. 136 of 97 against present respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who were the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 in the OA and against the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Home department as well as Director General of Police, Assam, who were respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the said O.A., praying for rectification of the select list prepared in the month of June 1996, placing the present writ petitioner (original applicant) above the present respondent No. 5 and 6 (respondent No. 7 and 8 in the O.A) for promotion to the Indian Police Service (in short IPS), basically on the ground of improper consideration of annual confidential reports (ACRs) and non consideration of the inter-se-seniority between them and also on the ground of non-consideration of entire service of records by the selection committee by ignoring the meritorious service rendered by the writ petitioner. The Union Public Service Commission on receipt of the notice entered appearance and filed the written statement stating inter alia that the committee duly classified eligible State Police Service officers, included in the zone of consideration, as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' or 'unfit', as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records as required under Regulation 5(4) of the 1955 Regulation by adopting its own norms and yardsticks in order to ensure equity, justice and fairplay in the assessment of the ACRs. It has further been contended that the Tribunal cannot got into the validity or otherwise of the selection as the same was done by UPSC, more so when the Tribunal cannot sit on appeal over the selection made by the selection committee. The learned tribunal upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the records produced by the UPSC, vide order dated 17.6.98 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner by holding that the original applicant could not show any instance which demonstrate dereliction of duties in writing the ACRs and the ACRs were written by the reporting officer and scrutinize and reviewed by the accepting and reviewing officer and therefore recorded the finding that the assessment of the officers made by the selection committee on the basis of the ACRs and subsequent gradation on such assessment fulfills the requirement of Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulation. It has further been held that the selection committee being an expert body knows how to make assessment and the tribunal is not competent to interfere with the decision of the selection committee in making the assessment and subsequent gradation unless there is something patently wrong on the face of it. The learned tribunal has held that the tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the selection committee in respect of placement of successful candidates. Hence the present writ petition before this court.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. D. C. Chakraborty, learned central Govt. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2, Mrs. B, Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6. None appears on behalf of the other respondents.