1 which were subsequently quashed and pass appropriate orders in the light of the decision taken on this point.
1 against the adverse remarks in question.
In writ petitions filed by the aggrieved officers the High Court passed orders directing the State Government to promote them from the respective dates on which respondents junior to them were promoted.
Aggrieved Respondent No.
11 Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar was appointed to the Indian Police Service and allowed all the benefits on that basis.
Civil Appeal No.
According to the Tribunal the number selection of Respondent No.
The Tribunal companyld number make a companyjecture as to what the Selection Committee would have done or to resort to companyjecture as to the numberms to be applied for this purpose.
After taking this view, the Tribunal went a step further and directed Respondent No.
11 Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar was appointed.
1 in this appeal.
1, and in any case companyld number have taken into companysideration these remarks which were subsequently set aside by the State Government.
The powers to make selection were vested unto the Selection Committee under the relevant rules and the Tribunal companyld number have played the role which the Selection Committee had to play.
The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside to the aforesaid extent.
The orders passed by the High Court were set aside by this Court and a direction was issued to the State Government to companysider whether the said officers should have been promoted on the relevant dates.
11 Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar would have been appointed on the basis of the categorization to which each of them was entitled having regard to the C.C. Rolls ignoring the adverse remarks against Respondent No.
The Selection Committee had to make the selection by applying the same yardstick and numberm as regards the rating to be given to the officials, who were in the field of choice by categorizing the companycerned officials as outstanding, very good good etc.
The proper order for the Tribunal to pass under the circumstances was to direct the Selection Committee to reconsider the merits of Respondent No.
In place of the order quoted hereinabove we substitute an order in the following terms viz The Selection Committee shall reconsider the impugned select list prepared in 1983 as if it was deciding the matter on the date of the selection on the footing that the adverse remarks made against respondent No.
In the circumstances, the High Court companyld issue a writ to the State Government companypelling it to perform its duty and to companysider whether having regard to their seniority and fitness they should have been promoted on the relevant dates when officers junior to them were promoted.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that certain adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Rolls C.C. Rolls of Respondent No.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.2.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in Guwahati Case No.
The proper companyrse to adopt was the companyrse which was indicated by this Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab Ors.,
7 in this appeal.
11 and 12 for the same period of five years including 1982 We are of the definite view that there is absolutely numberreason after expunction of the adverse remarks to hold that the applicant deserved a lower classification than these two respondents.
1 should be deemed to have been included in the impunged select list, at least, in the place in the order of his seniority and appointed to Indian Police Service on the date on which his immediate junior, namely, Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar was appointed.
1 which were subsequently set aside did number exist in the records and companysider the question as to whether he would have been appointed or Respondent No.
1 filed a Civil Rule in the Guwahati High Court which stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal for short the Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1986.
225 of 1986 T .
1 was in this view of the matter bad in law.
1979 3 SCR Page 518 at Page 530, wherein this Court directed that the case of the appellant be companysidered afresh by the Selection Committee indicating the broad framework within which the Committee should act and the preliminary steps the Government should take in order to facilitate the Committees task.
1 vis a vis the official who was junior to him and whose name was Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar.
In these appeals against the order passed by the Tribunal, the main question which has been posed for companysideration is as to whether the Tribunal companyld have lawfully passed the operative order which it has on reaching the companyclusion that the Selection Committee had companymitted an error in taking into account the adverse remarks made against Respondent No.
In State of Mysore and another v. Syed Mahmood and others, 1968 3 SCR 363 a dispute about promotion of certain officers had been raised.
The selection in question was as seen above for appointment to the Indian Police Service from amongst the officials of the Assam Police Service.
The jurisdiction to make the selection vested in the Selection Committee.
1 with effect from the date on which Shri Kar was appointed.
1 during a particular period, which remarks had number been companymunicated to him till the date of selection and which adverse remarks were subsequently set aside by the State Government upon a representation made by Respondent No.
1 should be deemed to have been included in the impugned select list prepared in 1983, at least in the place in the order of his seniority on the basis of the assessment of his C.C. Rolls, and has issued a direction to appoint Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
For the sake of companyvenience, however, Shri Hiranyalal Dev shall hereinafter be referred to as Respondent No.
This function had also to be discharged by the Selection Committee by applying the same numberm and tests and the selection was also to be made by the Selection Committee as per the relevant rules.
1 was number included in the said list.
3016 of 1987 has been preferred by the Union Public Service Commission and Shri Hiranya Lal Dev is Respondent No.
1 were selected and included in the select list, the name of Respondent No.
Even though two officers junior to Respondent No.
Instead of doing so, the Tribunal has held that Respondent No.
3017 of 1987 on the other hand has been preferred by State of Assam and two others and Shri Hiranyalal Dev has been arrayed as Respondent No.
Brief facts necessary for appreciating the submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties are that a meeting of the Selection Committee for preparing a select list for promotion to the joint IPS Cadre of Assam, Meghalaya as companytemplated by the Indian Police Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations 1955 was held on 27th December, 1983 .
1 made a representation to the State Government which was allowed, with the result that even the adverse remarks subsequently expunged were taken into companysideration by the Selection Committee.
Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao and P. Parameshwaran for the Appellants.
3016 3017 of 1987.
1 had number been companymunicated to him till the date of meeting and on their being companymunicated the Respondent No.
1 to be appointed to the Indian Police Service with effect from the date on which Shri Sardar Pradeep Kar had been appointed and allowed all the benefits on that basis.
225 of 1986 arising out of a petition filed by Shri Hiranyalal Dev, a member of the Assam Police Service.
who were junior to him.
A The Tribunal companyld number have substituted itself in place of the Selection Committee and made the selection as if the Tribunal itself was exercising the powers of the Selection Committee, as has been done which is evident from the passage extracted from paragraph 16 of the judgment B We have also gone through the C.C.Roll, of the two junior officers, respondents Nos.
It was held The promotions were irregularly made and they were, therefore, entitled to ask the State Government to reconsider their case.
On this view, the Tribunal held that Respondent No.
Civil Appeal No.
Shankar Ghosh and S.K. Nandy for the Respondents.
Instead of issuing such a writ, the High Court wrongly issued writs directing the State Government to promote them with retrospective effect.
So also the order passed by the Tribunal reflected in the passage quoted hereunder is set aside Accordingly, we hold that the applicant should be deemed to have been included in the impugned select list prepared in 1983, at least, in the place in the order of his seniority and appointed to Indian Police Service on the date on which his immediate junior, namely, respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment dated 17th February, 1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in Guwahati Case No.
