BAIDYANATH YADAV versus ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

[2019] 15 S.C.R. 427

BAIDYANATH YADAV

ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 8847 of 2019)

NOVEMBER 19, 2019

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDAJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – r.8– Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by selection)Regulations, 1997 – IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,1955 – Judicial review of the process governing the selection ofnon-SCS officers to the IAS – Scope of – The Selection Committeeof the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to theState Screening Committee which placed respondent No.1’s nameat Serial No.3 for selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS – Beforethe State Screening Committee, in the list of 17 recommendations,the appellant was mentioned at Serial No.14, respondent No.9 atSerial No.15 and respondent No.1 at serial No.16 – The StateScreening Committee recommended ten names including appellantand respondent No.9, but not respondent No.1 to the UPSC – Twoofficers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom wasappellant – Respondent No.1 approached CAT for quashingappellant’s appointment and for directions to the State ScreeningCommittee to recommend his name to the UPSC – Tribunal dismissedrespondent No.1’s application – Writ petition by respondent No.1– High Court held that the State Screening Committee failed torecord and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was boundto do – High Court also held that respondent No.1’s name was onlyone recommended to the UPSC previous year, so his name shouldhave figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations– High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal anddirected the State Screening Committee to recommend RespondentNo.1’s name to the UPSC – On appeal, held: Tribunal or Courtcannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates – In theinstant case, it was not for the High Court to address questions ofcomparative merit of the candidates and neither it is appropriatefor the Supreme Court – However, the Court may look into whether

Athere was any serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, malafides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process – It was evidentfrom the regulations and guidelines governing the process ofselection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as letter issuedby the GAD, there was no relevance to the serial order in whichthe names of candidates were recommended – This was wronglyBweighed with the High Court – Further, catena of decisionsestablish that even the principles of natural justice do not requirea duly constituted selection committee to disclose the reasons forits decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so –There was no mandation for disclosure of reasons in the relevantCrules, regulations and guidelines – Further, there was no hint ofarbitrariness, mala fides or bias in the recommendation of theofficers including appellant – The decision of the High Court waswithout jurisdiction and therefore, set aside – Service Law.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtDHELD: 1. It was concluded in M. Sathiya Priya that it wasnot for the High Court to address questions of comparative meritof the candidates, and neither is it appropriate for this Court todo the same. All this Court may look into is whether there wasany serious violation of statutory rules, or any bias, mala fidesor arbitrariness in the entire selection process. [Para 5.3] [436-EG]

2. The names of two suitable persons per department wereallowed to be submitted. In this scenario, the departmentalSelection Committee recommended the names of the Appellantand Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placed beforeFthe minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’sname may be recommended, noting that he had beenrecommended the previous year, and there was no bar onrecommending such person again if he fulfilled all requisitecriteria. Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture forwardedthree names to the State Screening Committee, with RespondentGNo. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Out of total of seventeenrecommendations received from various departments, the StateScreening Committee recommended ten names for considerationto the UPSC, which included the Appellant but not RespondentNo. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS byHthe UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant. [Para 8] [439-D-F]

3. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argumentthat placing his name at the bottom of the list ofrecommendations made by the departmental SelectionCommittee even after he was recommended by the concernedminister, and subsequently at Serial No. 16 instead of No. 14before the State Screening Committee, prejudiced the selectionprocess against him. However, as evident from the regulationsand guidelines governing the process of selection of non-SCSofficers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014 callingfor recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no relevanceto the serial order in which the names of candidates wererecommended by either the Department of Agriculture or theState Screening Committee. The order of placement in the listonly acquires relevance at the stage of preparation of the SelectList by the UPSC Committee under Regulation 5 of the IndianAdministrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations,1997 read with the relevant guidelines. Thus, there is merit inthe submission made on behalf of the Appellant and the StateGovernment that the order of placement of the candidates’names in the lists prepared by the departmental and Statecommittees wrongly weighed with the High Court. [Para 9] [439-G-H; 440-A-B]

4. Additionally, as pointed out by the Respondent No. 1,it appears from the records of the meetings of the StateScreening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No.1’s name while assessing the merit of the recommendedcandidates, on the ground that his name had not beenrecommended by the departmental Selection Committee.However, the 1997 Regulations read with the relevant guidelinesindicate that no fault can be found with this approach. Thoughthe letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that thedepartmental minister’s approval was necessary for anyrecommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, thisdid not confer any power upon him to recommend name of hisown accord. Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’sname being added to the list of two officials already recommendedby the departmental committee, more so when only two nameshad been invited by the GAD, must be held to be irregular andin violation of the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines.

AMoreover, in such scenario, it cannot be said that there wasany malice or bias leading to the non-consideration of RespondentNo. 1’s name by the State Screening Committee. [Para 9.1] [440-C-E]

5. Moreover, this Court finds itself in disagreement withBthe conclusion of the High Court that the decision of the StateScreening Committee was arbitrary for non-disclosure ofreasons. catena of decisions of this Court has established thateven the principles of natural justice do not require dulyconstituted selection committee to disclose the reasons for itsCdecision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it to do so. [Para9.2] [440-F-G]

6. As there is no such requirement mandating thedisclosure of reasons in the relevant rules, regulations andguidelines, there is no doubt in our minds that the procedureDadopted by the State Screening Committee cannot be faulted.[Para 9.3] [441-E]

7. In any case, the direction issued by the High Courtdirecting the State Screening Committee to recommendRespondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely withoutEjurisdiction. Upon reaching finding of arbitrariness in theselection process, the Court could at the most have issued adirection to the State Screening Committee to reassess thenames of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevantdocuments. It was not for the Court to sit in judgment over themerit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that ofFthe Screening Committee. [Para 11] [442-E-F]

National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciencesv. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481 ;Union Public Service Commission v. Arun KumarGSharma (2015) 12 SCC 600 – referred to.

Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya(2018) 15 SCC 796: [2018] 6 SCR 701 ; M.V.Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 : [2007] 13SCR 624 ; R.S. Dass v. Union of India (1986) SuppHSCC 617 : [1987] SCR 527 – relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8847of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2018 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017

With

Civil Appeal No. 8848 of 2019.

Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Praveen Chandra, Somesh ChandraJha, Rahul Narang, M. Shoeb Alam, Advs. for the Appellants.

R. Venkataramani, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Smarhar Singh,Binay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Praveen Vignesh, Dhruv Sheoran,Varun Chauhan, Samir Ali Khan, Ms. Pyoli, Anand Darshan, ChandanKumar, Rituraj Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise against the final judgment and order ofthe High Court of Patna dated 06.04.2018 passed in Civil WritJurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017 allowing the appeal filed by RespondentNo. 1 herein, and quashing the appointment of the Appellant in SLP(C) No. 12370 of 2019 (“the Appellant”) to the Indian AdministrativeService.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:

3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacanciesin the Indian Administrative Service (“the IAS”) from amongst non-State Civil Service officers (“non-SCS officers”) for the Selection Year2014. The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No. 1, Aditya

ANarayan Roy and Respondent No. 9 in SLP (C) No. 12370 of 2019,Ram Prakash Sahni (“Respondent No. 9”), belonged to the BiharAgricultural Service. The Department of Agriculture, along with otherdepartments, was invited to recommend the names of two officials tothe State Screening Committee for selection of ten persons to berecommended to the Union Public Service Commission (“the UPSC”)Bfor final selection. The Selection Committee of the Department ofAgriculture, headed by the Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated07.08.2014, considered the names of four officials of the department,being the Appellant, Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 9, and oneRavindra Kumar Verma, and recommended the names of the AppellantCand Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were then placed beforethe minister concerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed thatRespondent No. 1’s name may be recommended. As consequence,the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the StateScreening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placingRespondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. Before the State ScreeningDCommittee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, theAppellant was mentioned at Serial No. 14, Respondent No. 9 at SerialNo. 15, and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 16. The State ScreeningCommittee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten namesfor consideration to the UPSC, including the names of the AppellantEand Respondent No. 9, but not Respondent No. 1. From this list, twoofficers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was theAppellant, the other being an official from another department. Thiswas notified by the Department of Personnel Training vide notificationNo. 14015/4/2014-AIS(I)-B dated 22.01.2015.F3.2 Respondent No. 1 approached the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’sappointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture torecommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State ScreeningCommittee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his nameto the UPSC, for the UPSC to conduct fresh assessment for hisGappointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in caseof favourable recommendations.

3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No. 1’s application, notingthat the departmental minister’s order dated 11.08.2014 did not containany finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the most meritoriousHcandidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the non-inclusion

of his name in the initial recommendation made by the Department ofAgriculture. Thus, there was no illegality or mala fides in RespondentNo. 1’s name occurring at Serial No. 3 in the list forwarded to the StateScreening Committee, contrary to his argument that his name shouldhave occurred at the top since he was the most meritorious. The Tribunalfurther reasoned that even if Respondent No. 1’s name had been atthe top in this list, in the list prepared by the State Screening Committeehe would still have figured only at Serial No. 14 instead of Serial No.16, which was irrelevant, since the only pertinent aspect was that hisname was considered along with other officials. The Tribunal dismissedRespondent No. 1’s application noting that his case was based onconjectures about being selected if his name had been recommendedto the UPSC committee, and that directing the State ScreeningCommittee to recommend his name to the UPSC would amount tositting in judgment over the evaluation of merit by the authorities.3.4 Respondent No. 1 filed writ application seeking the settingaside of the above order of the Tribunal, which was allowed by theHigh Court. The Court reasoned that the State Screening Committeehad failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it wasbound to do, in light of its absolute power over the trajectory of thecareer of the aspirants to the IAS, and the mere presence of seniorofficers on the committee would not by itself guarantee objectivity andfairness in decision-making. Moreover, the Court held that sinceRespondent No. 1’s name was the only one recommended to the UPSCthe previous year, which recommendation had remained in limbo, hisname should have figured as the first candidate in the list ofrecommendations made by the Department of Agriculture. The Courtnoted that upon examining the manner of consideration of names, it wasnot satisfied of objectivity, fairness and the lack of consideration ofextraneous reasons in the selection process, with efforts to keepRespondent No. 1 out of the process apparent at every stage.

3.5The High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal,directing that the State Screening Committee recommend RespondentNo. 1’s name to the UPSC within two weeks, and that the UPSCthereafter consider his case objectively. Such consideration would alsodetermine the fate of the Appellant, whose inclusion into the IAS cadrewould not create any right in his favour until the decision of the UPSCon Respondent No. 1’s name. For the purpose of the consideration ofRespondent No. 1’s name, the post would be considered to be vacant

Afor the year 2014. After the State Screening Committee made itsrecommendation, the UPSC would be expected to hold an interviewand evaluation of Respondent No. 1 preferably within period of sixweeks. This lead the Appellant and the State of Bihar to approach thisCourt by way of the instant appeals.

4. Heard the Counsel for either side and perused the record.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. HuzefaAhmadi, argued that the High Court erred in giving weight to the serialorder in which the names of the officers were placed before the StateScreening Committee; non-disclosure of reasons by selectionCcommittee does not vitiate their decision, unless required by rules oradministrative instructions (relying on National Institute of MentalHealth & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2)SCC 481, and Union Public Service Commission v. Arun KumarSharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600), which was not the case here; there wasno direction by the departmental minister to keep Respondent No. 1’sDname at the top; and the direction for reconsideration of his name alone,rather than of all the recommended candidates, was beyond thejurisdiction of the High Court.

4.2 Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. P. S. Patwalia,took us through the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment byESelection) Regulations, 1997 (“the 1997 Regulations”), and submittedthat the departmental Selection Committee and the State ScreeningCommittee had undertaken fair and objective assessment of theservice records under the Regulations. He also pointed out that in theabsence of any allegation of mala fides or bias, it could not be heldFthat there was any undue influence on the committee members. Heended by referring to the decision of this Court in Union Public ServiceCommission v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796, emphasisingthat the High Court could not have reassessed the findings of thecommittees on merit.

G4.3 It was submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1,Mr. R. Venkataramani, submitted that as per the 1997 Regulations, theofficers were to be recommended by the State Government based onwhether they possessed outstanding merit and ability, which was to beassessed based on objectively determinable criteria such as the AnnualConfidential Records (“ACRs”) of the officers. Arguing that since allHof Respondent No. 1’s ACRs reflected better grading than the

Appellant’s, having the grade “Excellent” with respect to every aspectas opposed to P’s “Very Goods”, his non-selection reflected that theselection committees had travelled beyond such ACRs in recommendingthe Appellant’s name, and had thus acted arbitrarily. He also drew ourattention to the minutes of the meeting of the State ScreeningCommittee, which, while considering the recommended names, hadnoted that Respondent No. 1’s name had not been recommended bythe departmental Selection Committee and would hence not beconsidered. It was argued that this had unfairly prejudiced RespondentNo. 1’s prospects, since the addition of his name to the list by theMinister was completely valid, in light of the letter dated 22.05.2014 ofthe General Administration Department (“GAD”), which specified thatthe recommendations of the department had to be approved by theconcerned minister.

5. At the heart of the dispute before us for consideration lies thescope of judicial review of the process governing the selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, for which it is important to take stock of theposition governing judicial review of selections made by duly constitutedexpert body.

5.1 It is by now well-settled that the scope of such review islimited, and the Tribunal or Court cannot re-assess the merit of theindividual candidates. As observed by 2-Judge Bench of this Courtin M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119:

“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of thecandidates. Normally, the recommendations of the SelectionCommittee cannot be challenged except on the ground of malafides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannotsit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendationsof the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. Thisdiscretion has been given to the Selection Committee only andcourts rarely sit as court of appeal to examine the selection ofthe candidates nor is the business of the court to examine eachcandidate and record its opinion…”

5.2 This view has subsequently been affirmed by this Court invarious decisions, including the recent decision of 2-Judge Bench ofthis Court in M. Sathiya Priya (supra), of which one of us was amember. In this decision, this Court, while setting aside the re-assessment undertaken by the Tribunal and the High Court of the

Arecommendations made by the Selection Committee to the UPSC forappointments to be made to the Indian Police Service by promotion,observed as follows:

“17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. Itis presided over by the Chairman or Member of UPSC and isBduly represented by the officers of the Central Government andthe State Government who have expertise in the matter. In ourconsidered opinion, when High-Level Committee or an expertbody has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessedthe grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is notopen to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment madeCby the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. Thequestion as to how the categories are assessed in light of therelevant records and as to what norms apply in making theassessment, is exclusively to be determined by the SelectionCommittee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per lawDis vested in the Selection Committee and as the SelectionCommittee members have got expertise in the matter, it is notopen for the courts generally to interfere in such matters exceptin cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either onthe ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the functionof the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appealsEover the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinisethe relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whethera candidate is fit for particular post or not has to be decidedby the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee.The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in suchmatters.”F

(emphasis added)

5.3 It can be concluded from the above that it was not for theHigh Court to address questions of comparative merit of the candidates,and neither is it appropriate for us to do the same. All we may lookGinto is whether there was any serious violation of statutory rules, orany bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the entire selection process. Toaddress this question, it is essential to revisit the process prescribed forthe selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS.

6. Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment)HRules, 1954 governs the selection of officers to the IAS by way of

promotion or selection. While Rule 8(1) deals with promotion from theState Civil Services, Rule 8(2) deals with selection from amongstofficers of outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with theaffairs of the State, who are not members of the State Civil Servicebut hold gazetted post in substantive capacity, i.e. non-SCS officers.

6.1 The 1997 Regulations were framed in pursuance of Rule 8(2).As per Regulation 4, the State Government is required to recommendthe names of persons as described in Rule 8(2), for consideration ofthe Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the IAS (Appointmentby Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (“the 1955 Regulations”), comprisingmembers of the UPSC (“the UPSC Committee”). Such persons mustalso have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January ofthe year in which their case is being considered, by which time theymust have completed minimum of eight years of continuous serviceunder the State Government in any post which has been declaredequivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service.Such persons must also not have been selected in an earlier list forappointment to the IAS and subsequently not been appointed by theCentral Government in the exercise of its powers under Regulation 9.The number of persons recommended by the State Government maynot exceed five times the number of vacancies proposed to be filledduring the year.6.2 Regulation 5 provides that the UPSC Committee, uponconsideration of the names proposed by the State Government, mayrecommend the names of as many persons as there are vacancies. Thesuitability of person for appointment to the IAS cadre is to bedetermined by scrutiny of service records as well as through personalinterview. After consultation with the State Government, Select Listis to be prepared with the names so selected, and appointments are tobe made in the manner prescribed thereafter.

6.3 After the above regulations came into force, guidelines wereformulated in 2003 for the selection of persons underRegulation 5, which were circulated vide memorandumNo. 4/14/2003-AIS. The guidelines pertain to the assessment ofcandidates based on their service records and personal interview. InParagraph B.1 of the guidelines, it is outlined that out of total of 100marks to be awarded, equal weightage has to be accorded to the servicerecord, with particular reference to ACRs for the preceding five years,and to the interview. Furthermore, the curriculum vitae of the candidate

Amay be kept in consideration while assessing the overall personality ofthe candidate during the interview.

6.4 Paragraph B.2 states that on the basis of the assessment ofthe individual ACRs, the UPSC Committee may assign 10 marks forthe “Outstanding” grade, 8 marks for “Very Good”, 6 marks for “Good”,Band 4 for “Average”, in the individual years of assessment. Whileassigning marks to the ACRs of the eligible officers, the broad guidelinesfor the 1955 Regulations may be followed. It is relevant to note that asper the 1955 Regulations, the Committee must also satisfy itself as tothe integrity of the candidates based on the remarks on their confidentialreports.C

6.5 Paragraph B.3 states that the minimum score necessary fora candidate to be selected is 50% marks in each component. ParagraphB.4 states that merit list of selected candidates is to be prepared, inthe sequence of the scores obtained, further providing that in case of atie between officers, the older officer is to be placed above in the list.DParagraph lays down the topics which may be covered by theCommittee during the personal interview.

7. In accordance with the above regulations, the PrincipalSecretary, GAD, Government of Bihar had invited submissions of thename of the most suitable person from each department for theErecommendation of non-SCS officers for selection to the IAS, vide letterdated 22.05.2014. The important conditions required to be fulfilled fora valid recommendation to be made, as laid down in paragraph 3 ofthe letter, are reproduced below verbatim:

“(b) The recommended officer should necessarily possessFexcellent qualification as per law and any prime-facie caseshould not be proved against them.

(c) While clearly entering the service-history of the officers,for it, please attach separate sheet.

(d) While preparing the particulars of their annual confidentialGremarks with Reporting, Monitoring and Acceptance,Authority Grading, it be attached on separate sheet. Aswell, updated full Character Encyclopedia be attached.

(e) certificate of non-pendency of any matter against theofficers before the Departmental charges, CabinetH(Monitoring) Department and Lokayukt Office, be sent, so

that, acceptance of the certificate of truthfulness wouldbe appropriated totally.

(f) previous posting particulars of the officers (Including pay-scale) be included.

xxx

(h) Original copy of the proceedings of Selection Committee,attested copy with the nomination letter should be enclosednecessarily. On the recommendation of SelectionCommittee, approval of the Departmental Minister bereceived necessarily and this fact be clarified in the letterthat on the recommendation of selection committee, theCapproval of Departmental Minister has been received. Incase, its clear reference is not mentioned, therecommendation shall not be considerable.”

8. Vide letter dated 23.07.2014, the names of two suitablepersons per department were allowed to be submitted. In this scenario,the departmental Selection Committee recommended the names of theAppellant and Respondent No. 9. The recommendations were placedbefore the minister concerned, who directed that Respondent No. 1’sname may be recommended, noting that he had been recommendedthe previous year, and there was no bar on recommending such personagain if he fulfilled all requisite criteria. Thereafter, the Department ofAgriculture forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee,with Respondent No. 1’s name at Serial No. 3. As mentioned supra,out of total of seventeen recommendations received from variousdepartments, the State Screening Committee recommended ten namesfor consideration to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but notRespondent No. 1. From this list, two officers were selected to the IASby the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant.

9. Respondent No. 1’s case is premised on the argument thatplacing his name at the bottom of the list of recommendations madeby the departmental Selection Committee even after he wasrecommended by the concerned minister, and subsequently at Serial No.16 instead of No. 14 before the State Screening Committee, prejudicedthe selection process against him. However, as evident from theregulations and guidelines governing the process of selection of non-SCS officers to the IAS, as well as the letter dated 22.05.2014 callingfor recommendations issued by the GAD, there was no relevance to

Athe serial order in which the names of candidates were recommendedby either the Department of Agriculture or the State ScreeningCommittee. The order of placement in the list only acquires relevanceat the stage of preparation of the Select List by the UPSC Committeeunder Regulation 5 read with the relevant guidelines. Thus, there is meritin the submission made on behalf of the Appellant and the StateBGovernment that the order of placement of the candidates’ names inthe lists prepared by the departmental and State committees wronglyweighed with the High Court.9.1 Additionally, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel forRespondent No. 1, it appears from the records of the meetings of theCState Screening Committee that it did not consider Respondent No. 1’sname while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on theground that his name had not been recommended by the departmentalSelection Committee. However, the 1997 Regulations read with therelevant guidelines indicate that no fault can be found with this approach.DThough the letter of the GAD dated 22.05.2014 stipulated that thedepartmental minister’s approval was necessary for anyrecommendation by the Selection Committee to be valid, this did notconfer any power upon him to recommend name of his own accord.Thus, the entire procedure of Respondent No. 1’s name being addedto the list of two officials already recommended by the departmentalEcommittee, 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 scenario, it cannot besaid that there was any malice or bias leading to the non-considerationof Respondent No. 1’s name by the State Screening Committee.F9.2 Moreover, we find ourselves in disagreement with theconclusion of the High Court that the decision of the State ScreeningCommittee was arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons. catena ofdecisions of this Court has established that even the principles of naturaljustice do not require duly constituted selection committee to disclosethe reasons for its decision, as long as no rule or regulation obliges it toGdo so. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this Court inNational Institute of Mental Health (supra), which has also beensubsequently affirmed in several cases, including Union Public ServiceCommission v. Arun Kumar Sharma (supra). In National Instituteof Mental Health (supra), the Court, following the decision in R.S.HDass v. Union of India, (1986) Supp SCC 617, observed as follows:

“7. ... In the first place, it must be noted that the function of theSelection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It ispurely administrative... Administrative authority is under no legalobligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed,even the principles of natural justice do not require anadministrative authority or Selection Committee or an examinerto record reasons for the selection or non-selection of personin the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has beenstated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India [1986 SuppSCC 617 : (1987) 2 ATC 628] in which Capoor Case [(1973) 2SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : (1974) 1 SCR 797] was alsodistinguished.

8. ... we may state at the outset that giving of reasons fordecision is different from, and in principle distinct from, therequirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness isthe main requirement in the administrative action. The ‘fairness’or ‘fair procedure’ in the administrative action ought to beobserved. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception tothis principle. It must take decision reasonably without beingguided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration...”

9.3 As there is no such requirement mandating the disclosureof reasons in the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, there is nodoubt in our minds that the procedure adopted by the State ScreeningCommittee cannot be faulted.

10. Having thus found that the State Screening Committee wascorrect in considering only the two names recommended by thedepartmental Selection Committee, we now turn our attention to thecrucial question of whether Respondent No. 1’s name was wronglyexcluded by the departmental Selection Committee itself, on accountof any bias, malice or arbitrariness.

10.1 In this respect, the High Court observed that thoughRespondent No. 1 had been recommended as the only candidate fromthe Department of Agriculture in the previous year, 2013, suchrecommendation was not acted upon since the meeting for the year inquestion could not be held in time by the UPSC. It was further observedthat the notings revealed that the primary reason why Respondent No.1’s name was not recommended in 2014 was because his name hadbeen recommended earlier. The Court noted that there was no clarity

Aon how the earlier recommendation came in the way of his name beingrecommended after fresh exercise was initiated in 2014, which leadthe Court to conclude that the non-recommendation of his name at thefirst instance appeared to be based on extraneous considerations.

10.2 We find ourselves unable to agree with the above conclusionBof the High Court. As per the letter dated 30.05.2013 from the GADto the Department of Agriculture, the previous year’s recommendationof Respondent No. 1’s name by the latter department had in fact beenreturned by the GAD for not being in consonance with the expectednorms of recommendation. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that it isunclear which notings the High Court relied on to conclude thatCRespondent No. 1 had not been recommended because of his earlierrecommendation, it is evident that the High Court erred in observingthat Respondent No. 1’s recommendation from the previous year hadsimply remained in limbo, and that his non-recommendation the nextyear was therefore suspect. Thus, we are of the view that there is noDhint of arbitrariness, mala fide or bias in the recommendation of twoother officers, including the Appellant, by the Department of Agriculturein 2014.

11. In any case, we find that the direction issued by the HighCourt directing the State Screening Committee to recommendERespondent No. 1’s name to the UPSC was completely withoutjurisdiction. Upon reaching finding of arbitrariness in the selectionprocess, the Court could at the most have issued direction to the StateScreening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by givingdue consideration to all relevant documents. As already observed above,it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of theFcandidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the ScreeningCommittee. Be that as it may, in light of the above discussion, weconclude that there is no case to direct the reconsideration of theseventeen candidates before the Screening Committee, or to interferewith the appointm©ents already made for the Selection Year 2014.G12. The decision of the High Court is therefore set aside, andthe instant appeals are allowed.

Ankit Gyan