Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4931/2020 on 19 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010161852020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4931 OF 2020
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), represented by its
Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Shri Brahmananda Patir,
Resident of Saukusi, Balijan, PO: Kahilipara,
Guwahati - 781029, District: Kamrup (M), Assam.
2. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of
Environment Forest & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
6th Floor, Prithvi Block, Jor Bagh, Ali Ganj, New Delhi - 110066.
3. State of Assam, through the Chief Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati - 6.
........Respondents
-Before-
Hon'ble the chief justice Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Achintya malla bujor barua
For the Writ Petitioner : Mrs. R. Borah, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Nath, Advocate.
For respondent No.2 : Mr. K. Gogoi, Central Govt. Advocate.
For respondent No.3 : Mr. T.C. Chutia,
Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam.
Date of hearing and Judgment & Order : 19th January, 2021.
Page No.# 2/5
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
Heard Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Nath,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central
Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.3
2. This writ petition is filed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
challenging the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No.040/00152/2018, which was moved by the private
respondent No.1. The case of the private respondent No.1, who is a Forest Officer in State
Forest Service is that the Selection Committee was wrong in not recommending his name for
promotion to the Indian Forest Services, i.e. IFS Cadre. The selection pertains to the year
2015. Since it is a promotion relating to an All India Service, the promotion exercise has to
be done by the Public Service Commission, where a Selection Committee is appointed in
terms of Regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1966 (for short "1966 Regulations"). Regulation 3 to the said Regulations reads as under:-
"3. Constitution of the Committee to make selection- [3(1) There shall be constituted
for a State Cadre or Joint Cadre specified in column 2 of Schedule, a committee
consisting of the Chairman of the Commission of where the Chairman is unable to
attend, any other member of the Commission representing it and other members
specified in the corresponding entry of column 3 of the said Schedule:
Provided that-
(I) No member of the Committee other than the Chairman or the member of the
Commission shall be a person who is not a member of an All India Service;
(ii) The nominees of the Government of India shall not belong to the cadre for which
the meeting of the Committee is to be held; and
(iii) The Central Government may after consultation with the State Government
concerned, amend the Schedule.
Page No.# 3/5
3(2) The Chairman or the member of the Commission shall preside at all meetings of
the Committee at which he is present.
3(3) The absence of a member, other than the Chairman or member of the
Commission, shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Committee if more than half
the members of the Committee had attended its meetings."
3. Since the Selection Committee had not recommended the promotion of the private
respondent No.1 for the year 2015, he had filed an O.A. No.040/00152/2018 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, which was disposed of by the
Tribunal vide order dated 28.11.2019 with directions to the UPSC to hold Review Selection
Committee meeting within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the said order.
4. Consequent to it, a Review Selection Committee was constituted and it came to a
conclusion that the upgradation of ACR of private respondent No.1 " Good" to "Very Good"
was not proper and, therefore, the overall assessment of the private respondent No.1 was
again brought down to "Good".
5. The net result of this rating would be that the private respondent No.1 will not be
promoted to the IFS cadre as there are enough candidates within the zone of consideration
who have an ACR rating of either "Outstanding" or "Very Good" who have thus a better
claim for the promotion in terms of Sub Section (3-AA) and Sub-Regulation 4 of Regulation 5
of the 1966 Regulations. This has to be seen in terms of Sub Section (3-AA) and Sub
Regulation 4 of Regulation 5 of the 1966 Regulations, which read as under:-
"(3-AA) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officer at Outstanding
'Very Good'. 'Good' or Unfit as the case may be, on all relative assessment of their
service records.
(4) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names, first
from amongst the officers finally classified as 'Outstanding' than from amongst those
similarly classified as 'Very Good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly
classified as 'Good' and the order of names inter se within each category shall be in
the order of their seniority in the State Forest Service."
Page No.# 4/5
6. With the overall "Good" entry in his ACR effectively the private respondent lost his
chance of promotion to the IFS cadre. Hence, the private respondent No.1 approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal again, which has now given the findings that the procedure
adopted by the Review Selection Committee was not in accordance with law as an overall
assessment of the private respondent No.1 has not been done. In its operative portion, the
Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in Paragraphs 10 & 11 as follows:-
"10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and arguments of both
the parties. We also have carefully gone through the Minutes of the Review Selection
Committee meeting dated 20.12.2017. As could be made out from the reading of the
Minutes of the Review Committee, it is indeed clear that the Review Committee has
applied its mind only on the upgraded ACR of the applicant. They have not made
overall assessment of the service of the applicant, as should have been done by the
Selection Committee as provided under 5(3AA) of the Indian Forest Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.
11. After careful consideration, we deem it fit and proper that Minutes of the
Review Selection Committee has not been fair to the applicant in arriving at their
decision as recorded therein and this Minute of the Selection Committee Meeting is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the Minutes of the Review Selection
Committee meeting held on 20.12.2017 and direct the UPSC to hold review selection
committee meeting within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order by considering upgraded ACRs by taking note of the orders of CAT and
Hon'ble high Court as well as papers and documents placed by the Government of
Assam and decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant."
7. What constitutes an overall assessment, learned counsel for the private
respondent No.1, Mr. N. Nath would state, is given in the guidelines of the Union Public
Service Commission from time to time. As per the guidelines, which were in force at the
relevant time, i.e. on 27.03.2017, assessment has to be done of the performance of the
officer for the last 5(five) years. Para 3.1 of the guidelines read as under:-
"3.1 The Selection Committee would go through the service records of each of
the eligible officers, with special reference to the performance of the officer during
the last five years including the vacancy year, and after deliberation will record the
Page No.# 5/5
assessment of the Committee in the Assessment Sheet comprising the Assessment
Matrix [Officer x Year-wise assessment] and the Column for Overall Assessment
of the officers."
8. This, however, has not been done in case of the private respondent as what has
been considered by the Selection Committee was only the upgraded ACR. We are totally in
agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. We are also, therefore, of the
opinion that as there is no anomaly in the findings, consequently there is no scope of any
interference. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
