High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-07-21Dismissed

C.F. Robert v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-21
Court Decision / Holding: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 is dismissed; the CAT order dismissing OA 444/2021 is sustained.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.F. Robert

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
The Union Public Service Commission represented by its Chairman, Shajahen Road, New Delhi - 110003
Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 110 001
Selection Committee for Selection and Appointment by Promotion to the Kerala Cadre of the Indian Police Service for the year 2018 constituted under Regulation 5(3) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 & represented by its President Shri Rajiv Nayan Choubey, Member, UPSC, Shajahen Road, New Delhi – 110003
A. R. Premkumar retired Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS) residing at 73/503 A, Thundiparambil House, Karshaka Road, Pachalam, Vaduthala, Kochi - 23
Ramachandran T. retired Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS), Sangamithra, Venniyore, Nellivila P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695523
Jayakumar K. retired Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS) residing at Evra 404, Opp. Carmel School, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram - 695014
Mohanad D. retired Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS) residing at Aswathy, Chunakara South, Charumoodu P.O., Mavelikkara, Alappuzha – 690101
Amose Mammen retired Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS), residing at C 48/1482, Rice Research Centre Road, Ponnurunni East, Vyttila, Ernakulam - 682019
Shoukathali A. P., Assistant Director, Kerala Police Academy, Thrissur - 680631
Santhosh K. V., Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Malappuram - 676504
Kuriyakose V. U., Superintendent of Police, Vanitha Cell, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram - 695033
Sasidharan S., Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kozhikode - 673016
RameshKumar P. N., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Administration
Sunil M. L., Superintendent of Police, State Special Branch, Kozhikode – 673661

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. Sreeraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Senior Counsel for UPSC
• Sri Manu S. Asg of India
• Sri M.P. Ashok Kumar
• Sri Bindu Sreedhar
• Sri Asif N
• Sri P.C. Gopinath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021, heard a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam) order dismissing the applicant’s OA 444/2021 for IPS promotion to the Kerala cadre in 2018. The petitioner, a senior State Police Service officer, contends that his ACR for 2014 was upgraded in 2020, and that the Selection Committee failed to consider this upgraded record when grading him “good” for overall suitability, instead relying on the original 2014 entry along with ACRs for 2013–2017 (which were mostly “good” or “very good”). He argues UPSC should scrutinize the selection process and rectify any irregularities. The respondents rely on Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that courts should not impugn the assessment of a Selection Committee unless malafides, bias or arbitrariness is shown. The Tribunal had relied on rulings including Union PCS v. M.Sathya Priya, M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, and UPSC v. H.L. Dev to restrict judicial review to exceptions, and observed that there is no obligation to record detailed reasons absent malafides. The High Court agrees that upgrading the 2014 ACR after the Selection Committee met is irregular and that the committee’s prior consideration remains intact. Consequently, nothing turns on the upgraded ACR, and the O.A. is not warranting interference. The petition is dismissed; the CAT order stands. The court thus declines to re-weigh the evidence or re-adjudicate the selection outcome.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955Regulation 5(3) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955Regulation 5(4) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955Regulation 5(5) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955Promotion Regulations, 1955

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial review of Selection Committee decisions is limited; court will not act as super appellate authority unless malafides, bias or arbitrariness are shown.
No obligation on a Selection Committee to record reasons for its decision where there is no allegation of malafides or arbitrariness.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the 2014 ACR was upgraded in 2020, and that the Selection Committee did not take note of this upgraded entry when rating him for the 2018 IPS promotion. He argues that the upgraded ACR should have been considered by UPSC/Selection Committee, and that the UPSC has a duty to look into irregularities if noticed. He asserts that upgrading after six years undermines previous assessments and that the tribunal should re-examine the selection on grounds of fairness; he also requests production of files relating to the selection proceedings for scrutiny. He relies on Supreme Court precedents defining the scope of judicial review of Selection Committees and urges that an amendment or error in the record must be corrected by a superior authority rather than allowing a selection to stand on potentially flawed records.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no malafide or arbitrariness. The Selection Committee’s assessment is not open to re-weighing by a court, and the UPSC’s role is to review decisions for irregularities only if malafides are shown. They contend that the upgraded ACR was not before the Selection Committee that evaluated the candidate in 2021 for 2018 IPS promotions, and even if upgraded later, there is no requirement for the Committee to record reasons for its decision. Jurisprudence cited shows courts should not act as super appellate authorities over Committee assessments absent malafides. They emphasize that five to six years elapsed, and the petitioner knew the entries; thus, there is no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the OA.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Public Service Commission v. M.Sathya Priya and Others	[(2018) 15 SCC 796]	Positive	Used to justify limited scope of judicial review and that Selection Committee's assessments are not to be re-weighed in ordinary circumstances.
M.V.Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others	[2008 (2) SCC 119]	Positive	Support the principle that courts should refrain from sitting in appeal over the Selection Committee's decisions absent malafides.
UPSC v. H.L.Dev & Others	[AIR 1988 SC 1069]	Positive	Cited to delineate the limits of judicial review over UPSC/Selection Committee actions.
Union Public Service Commission and Another v. A. Mohanan and Others	[2010 3 KHC 241]	Positive	Kerala High Court decision cited to support non-recording of reasons when no malafides/arbitrariness is alleged.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C.F. Robert v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO. 84 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2021 IN OA 444/2021 OF** **CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN THE OA:** **C.F. ROBERT AGED 59 YEARS S/O. S. FRANCIS (LATE), RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON - IPS), RESIDING AT 'ROSHNI', CHEMMAKKADU P. O., PERINAD, KOLLAM - 691603, MOBILE NO.9495250350.** **BY ADV SRI.R.SREERAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OA:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003.** - **3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** - **4 SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION TO THE KERALA CADRE OF THE INDIAN POLICE SERVICE FOR THE YEAR 2018 CONSTITUTED UNDER REGULATION 5(3) OF THE IPS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATIONS 1955 & REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI RAJIV NAYAN CHOUBEY, MEMBER, UPSC, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110003.** :2: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 - **5 A. R. PREMKUMAR RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS) RESIDING AT 73/503 A, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARSHAKA ROAD, PACHALAM, VADUTHALA, KOCHI - 23.** - **6 RAMACHANDRAN T. RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS), SANGAMITHRA, VENNIYORE, NELLIVILA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.** - **7 JAYAKUMAR K. RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS) RESIDING AT EVRA 404, OPP. CARMEL SCHOOL, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.** - **8 MOHANAN D. RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS) RESIDING AT ASWATHY, CHUNAKARA SOUTH, CHARUMOODU P. O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA – 690101.** - **9 AMOSE MAMMEN RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS), RESIDING AT C 48/1482, RICE RESEARCH CENTRE ROAD, PONNURUNNI EAST, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM - 682019.** - **10 SHOUKATHALI A. P., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KERALA POLICE ACADEMY, THRISSUR - 680631.** - **11 SANTHOSH K. V., SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, MALAPPURAM - 676504.** - **12 KURIAKOSE V. U. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.** - **13 SASIDHARAN S., SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, KOZHIKODE - 673016.** - **14 RAMESHKUMAR P. N. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ADMINISTRATION,** :3: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 **ERNAKULAM - 682035.** **15 SUNIL M. L. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE SPECIAL BANCH, KOZHIKODE – 673661.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC UPSC SRI.MANU S. ASG OF INDIA SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEDHAR SRI.ASIF N SRI.P.C.GOPINATH** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022,** **THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** :4: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The applicant in O.A.No.444 of 2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the petitioner herein aggrieved by the final order dated 25.11.2021 of the Tribunal in the said O.A. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the OP(CAT) are as follows: The petitioner was apparently the Senior most State Police Service Officer in the zone of consideration for appointment by promotion to the Kerala Cadre of the Indian Police Service for the year 2018. It is stated that in the ACR's for the years 2013 to 2017, which were relevant for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for selection to the Kerala Cadre of IPS for the year 2018, the petitioner had obtained the grading of “good” for the years 2013 and 2014 and the grading of “very good” in the ACR's for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. Going by the guidelines/procedures issued by the UPSC to the Selection Committees for categorisation of State Police Civil Officers :5: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 and preparation of a list of suitable officers for promotion to the IPS in terms of Regulations 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee had to classify eligible officers as “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” or “unfit” as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of the service records. The guidelines clearly indicate that for making an overall relative assessment, the Committee will not depend solely on the grading recorded by the reporting/reviewing/accepting authorities but will make an independent assessment of the service records of the eligible officers as per the procedure indicated in the guidelines. In the case of the petitioner, the Selection Committee that met on 24.06.2021 gave the petitioner an overall grading of “good”, and in view of the overall grading of “very good” secured by other officers, the petitioner did not make it to the select list that was drawn up by the Selection Committee. It was being aggrieved by his exclusion from the select list that the petitioner approached the Tribunal through the O.A aforementioned. 3. Before the Tribunal, the contention of the petitioner was essentially that the ACR for the year 2014 had since been upgraded pursuant to a representation preferred by the petitioner for the same in 2020. Accordingly the ACR for the said year showed the petitioner as having obtained a grading of “very good” in that year. The contention of :6: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 the petitioner was that there was nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee, which met to assess the candidature of the petitioner, had taken note of the upgraded ACR for the year 2014, and it was his belief that the Selection Committee had seen only the ACR prior to upgradation and that this might have been the reason for the petitioner getting an overall grade of only “good”. It was the further contention of the petitioner that even assuming that the Selection Committee had taken note of the upgraded ACR for the year 2014, there should have been compelling reasons for the Selection Committee to have granted an overall grading of “good” to the petitioner notwithstanding the consistent grading of “very good” in the four years preceding the selection year. Lastly, it was contended that it was the statutory obligation of the UPSC to look into the decision of the Selection Committee and point out any irregularities if noticed by them. According to the petitioner the UPSC ought to have ensured that the Selection Committee had considered the fact of upgradation of the petitioner's ACR for the year 2014. 4. The Tribunal that went into the issue essentially relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court that delineated the scope and extent of the power of judicial review over decisions of the Selection Committee. In particular, reliance was placed on the decision in **Union** :7: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 **Public Service Commission v. M.Sathya Priya and Others [(2018) 15 SCC 796], M.V.Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others [2008 (2) SCC 119],** and **UPSC v. H.L.Dev & Others [AIR 1988 SC 1069]** to hold that it could not sit in judgment over the assessments made by the Selection Committee and thereby become a super appellate authority over the assessments made by the said Committee as long as those assessments were not vitiated on the ground of bias, malafides or arbitrariness. Taking note of the fact that there was no specific case of malafides made out by the petitioner before it, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the OA. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal erred in not taking note of the contention that there was a real possibility that the Selection Committee had not considered the upgraded ACR of the petitioner for the year 2014. In particular, it is pointed out that the files relating to the selection were never produced before the Tribunal and further that no reasons were forthcoming as to why the petitioner could not have been granted an overall grading of “very good” taking note, inter alia, of the upgraded ACR for the year 2014. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.Thomas Mathew :8: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 Nellimoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein that in the absence of any allegation of malafides it was not open to the Tribunal to sit in appeal over the decision of a Selection Committee, and it was this settled principle that was followed by the Tribunal while dismissing the OA. 7. On a consideration of the rival submission, we find that although it is the case of the petitioner that in 2021 there was an upgradation of the ACR pertaining to the year 2014, and the said upgradation was well before the Selection Committee met on 24.06.2021 to assess the candidature of the petitioner for the year 2018, it is not in dispute that it was the ACR as it originally stood for the year 2014 that was considered by the Selection Committee, that considered the candidature of the petitioner in the immediately preceding year (2017) for the same promotion. The Selection Committee, having considered the credentials of the petitioner in the previous year, it would be highly irregular for a subsequent Selection Committee to be confronted with an upgraded ACR for one of the years, that had already come up for consideration before the earlier Selection Committee. It is also significant that the upgradation of the ACR in the instant case comes after almost six years and it cannot be the case that the petitioner was not aware of the entries in the ACR in 2014 itself. In :9: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 the light of the aforesaid facts we find that nothing turns on the apprehension raised by the petitioner as regards alleged nonconsideration by the Selection Committee of the upgraded ACR of the petitioner for the year 2014. We are also not impressed with the contention as regards non-recording of any reasons by the Selection Committee while conferring an overall grading of “good” to the petitioner. As is now well settled through a line of decisions of the Supreme Court including **Union Public Service Commission v. M.Sathya Priya and Others [(2018) 15 SCC 796]** as also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Union Public Service Commission and Another v. A. Mohanan and Others [2010 3 KHC** **241]** , there is no obligation on the Selection Committee to record any reasons for their decision more so when there is no allegation of malafides or arbitrariness raised against them. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The OP(KAT) is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** mns :10: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 84/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** ## **Exhibit P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.444/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE "MATRIX OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 07.08.2020 FOR PREPARATION OF THE SELECT LIST OF 2017 FOR PROMOTION TO IPS OF KERALA CADRE" RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER LETTER F.NO.12/09/2020-AIS DATED 06.10.2020.** ## **ANNEXURE A1** - **TRUE COPY OF THE "MATRIX OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 24.06.2021 FOR PREPARATION OF THE SELECT LIST OF 2018 FOR PROMOTION TO IPS OF KERALA CADRE" RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER LETTER F.NO.12/09/2021-AIS DATED 27.08.2021.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACR OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 02.01.2014 TO 30.06.2014.** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACR OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.07.2014 TO 31.12.2014.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1944/2020/HOME DATED 08.09.2020.** - **ANNEXURE A5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AIS-C3/283/2020GAD DATED 20.10.2020.** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE UPSC GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF A LIST OF SUITABLE OFFICERS BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR PROMOTION TO THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE / INDIAN POLICE SERVICE ETC., (F.NO.4/3/2005-AIS)** ## :11: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 ## **ANNEXURE A7** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **ANNEXURE A7A** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.12/09/2021-AIS DATED 27.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE THAT MET ON 24.06.2021 TO SELECT THE OFFICERS ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION TO THE KERALA CADRE OF THE INDIAN POLICE SERVICE FOR THE VACANCIES OF THE YEAR 2018.** ## **ANNEXURE A9** - **TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE THAT MET ON 07.08.2020 TO SELECT THE OFFICERS ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION TO THE KERALA CADRE OF THE INDIAN POLICE SERVICE FOR THE VACANCIES OF THE YEAR 2017 RECEIVED AS PER AIS-C3/194/2021-GAD DATED 23.07.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2328/2020/HOME DATED 13.10.2020.** - **ANNEXURE A11** - **TRUE COPY OF THE IPS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 1955.** ## **Exhibit P2** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 28.10.2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 & 4.** **ANNEXURE R2(a)** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2020 OF UPGRADATION OF HIS (PETITIONER'S) ACR.** **ANNEXURE R2(b)** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 OF UPGRADATION OF HIS (6TH RESPONDENT'S) ACR.** :12: OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021 **Exhibit P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20.10.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST 2018 (NOTIFICATION NO.I-14011/20/2021-IPS,I(E) (II) DATED 30.09.2021.** **ANNEXURE R1(b)** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT NOTIFICATION (NO.I-14011/20/2021-IPS,I(E) (II) DATED 30.09.2021.** **Exhibit P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 25.11.2021 IN OA 444/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**