For the purpose of the companysideration of Respondent No.
1s name was the only one recommended to the UPSC the previous year, which recommendation had remained in limbo, his name should have figured as the first candidate in the list of recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture.
1, Aditya Narayan Roy and Respondent No.
3.3 The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No.
From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant, the other being an official from another department.
1 was the most meritorious candidate, or that gross injustice had occurred due to the numberinclusion of his name in the initial recommendation made by the Department of Agriculture.
Thus, there was numberillegality or mala fides in Respondent No.
As a companysequence, the Agricultural Department forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, placing Respondent No.
1, Respondent No.
1s name occurring at Serial No.
Before the State Screening Committee, in the list of seventeen recommendations received, the Appellant was mentioned at Serial No.
9, and one Ravindra Kumar Verma, and recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent No.
14 before the State Screening Committee, prejudiced the selection process against him.
1 filed a writ application seeking the setting aside of the above order of the Tribunal, which was allowed by the High Court.
The Selection Committee of the Department of Agriculture, headed by the Principal Secretary, in its meeting dated 07.08.2014, companysidered the names of four officials of the department, being the Appellant, Respondent No.
1s name had been at the top in this list, in the list prepared by the State Screening Committee he would still have figured only at Serial No.
Moreover, the Court held that since Respondent No.
9 , belonged to the Bihar Agricultural Service.
The Tribunal dismissed Respondent No.
1 at Serial No.
This lead the Appellant and the State of Bihar to approach this Court by way of the instant appeals.
The recommendations were placed before the minister companycerned, who directed that Respondent No.
1 herein, and quashing the appointment of the Appellant in SLP C No.
1s application, numbering that the departmental ministers order dated 11.08.2014 did number companytain any finding to the effect that Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified 3.
As mentioned supra, out of a total of seventeen recommendations received from various departments, the State Screening Committee recommended ten names for companysideration to the UPSC, which included the Appellant but number Respondent No.
3.4 Respondent No.
1s name at Serial No.
9, but number Respondent No.
1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellants appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to recommend Respondent No.
Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture forwarded three names to the State Screening Committee, with Respondent No.
14015/4/2014AIS I B dated 22.01.2015.
3.2 Respondent No.
1s name while assessing the merit of the recommended candidates, on the ground that his name had number been recommended by the departmental Selection Committee.
1 preferably within a period of six weeks.
12370 of 2019 the Appellant to the Indian Administrative Service.
16, which was irrelevant, since the only pertinent aspect was that his name was companysidered along with other officials.
1 out of the process apparent at every stage.
9 at Serial No.
14, Respondent No.
From this list, two officers were selected to the IAS by the UPSC, one of whom was the Appellant.
The Tribunal further reasoned that even if Respondent No.
1s name, the post would be companysidered to be vacant for the year 2014.
3.5 The High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, directing that the State Screening Committee recommend Respondent No.
3 in the list forwarded to the State Screening Committee, companytrary to his argument that his name should have occurred at the top since he was the most meritorious.
The Court numbered that upon examining the manner of companysideration of names, it was number satisfied of objectivity, fairness and the lack of companysideration of extraneous reasons in the selection process, with efforts to keep Respondent No.
The Department of Agriculture, along with other departments, was invited to recommend the names of two officials to the State Screening Committee for selection of ten persons to be recommended to the Union Public Service Commission the UPSC for final selection.
9 in SLP C No.
12370 of 2019, Ram Prakash Sahni Respondent No.
Vide letter dated 23.07.2014, the names of two suitable persons per department were allowed to be submitted.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.11.19 The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows 175910 IST Reason 3.1 The instant appeals pertain to the selection to two vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service the IAS from amongst numberState Civil Service officers numberSCS officers for the Selection Year 2014.
The Court reasoned that the State Screening Committee had failed to record and disclose reasons for its decision, which it was bound to do, in light of its absolute power over the trajectory of the career of the aspirants to the IAS, and the mere presence of senior officers on the companymittee would number by itself guarantee objectivity and fairness in decisionmaking.
Heard the Counsel for either side and perused the record.
The Appellant, Baidyanath Yadav, Respondent No.
1s name to the UPSC within two weeks, and that the UPSC thereafter companysider his case objectively.
The recommendations were then placed before the minister companycerned, who, vide order dated 11.08.2014, directed that Respondent No.
15, and Respondent No.
1s name to the State Screening Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC, for the UPSC to companyduct a fresh assessment for his appointment, and for the order of his appointment to be issued in case of favourable recommendations.
After the State Screening Committee made its recommendation, the UPSC would be expected to hold an interview and evaluation of Respondent No.
1s name at Serial No.
1s name may be recommended.
14 instead of Serial No.
The State Screening Committee, in its meeting dated 22.08.2014, recommended ten names for companysideration to the UPSC, including the names of the Appellant and Respondent No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
1s application numbering that his case was based on companyjectures about being selected if his name had been recommended to the UPSC companymittee, and that directing the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC would amount to sitting in judgment over the evaluation of merit by the authorities.
This was numberified by the Department of Personnel Training vide numberification No.
These appeals arise against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 06.04.2018 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No.
In this scenario, the departmental Selection Committee recommended the names of the Appellant and Respondent No.
13773 of 2017 allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.
