Gurdayal Slngh Fiji v. The State of Punjab and Ors.

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Gurdayal Singh Fiji, a member of the Punjab Provincial Civil Service, has presented this writ petition in person and he has argued his own case in person.

The main grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition appears to be against the non ·inclusion of his nan:e in the LA.S. Select List.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the senior-most persons in the service with a consistently good record of service on the whole, but because of two adverse remarks by two officers, certi-ficate of integrity has not been given to him. The Petitioner sub-mits that the adverse remarks made against him were mala fide and unjustified and the refusal to grant him a certificate of integrity and not to include his name in the I.A.S. Select List is wrongful and illegal.

As this writ petition may be disposed of on a short point, it does not become necessary for us to set out at length the various facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has taken us through the records and the various documents filed in support of his case made in the writ petition.

Jn view of the grievance made by the Petitioner as to non-inclu-sion of his name in the Select List, this Court by an order(') passed ;;i on 9.3.1979 directed the I. A. S. Selection Committee to hold a

special ineeting to consider the question of inclusion of the name of tl:e Petitio11er in the Select List. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, I.A.S. Selection Committee held a speci meeting on the 21.7.1979 and the Selection Committee found the Petitioner to be unsuitable for inclusion in the Select List. It may be noted that the I.A.S. Selection Committee which prepares the Select List is an independent body and recommendations of the ff f.A.S. Selection Committee further require to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission. The decision taken by the l.A.S. Selection Committee at the meeting held on 21.7.1979 pursuant to the order of this Court refusing to include the Petitioner jn the Select List was approved by the Union Public Service Commission which agreed with the recommendation. An affidavit has also been filed by Shri D.C. Mishra, Director, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The averments made in this affidavit go to establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List was properly considered by the Selection Committee on merits. As we have earlier noticed, the Selection Committee is an independent body and there is nothing on record to pursuade us to hold that the decision of the Selection Committee was not properly arrived at on consi-deration of the merits of the case and was, in any way, otherwise motivated. The Petitioner cannot claim to be included in the Select List as a matter of right. The Select List is prepared by the Selec-tion Committee on consideration of the merits on the basis of suita-bility of the officer concerned and recommendations made by the Selection Committee have to be approved by the Union Public Service Commission.

As the Selection Committee has not considered the Petitioner to be suitable to be included in Select List and the Union Public Service Con.mission has agreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List must fail.

There is another aspect of the matter which goes to establish that the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the Select List cannot now be considered. The Petitioner is now 55 years of age and the age bar in the matter of inclusion in the Select List debars the Peti-tioner from being included in the Select List. In the result this petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ; Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1980. (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Petitioner in person Hardayal Hardy and M.S. Dhillon, for Respondent No. l.

P.A. Francis, N. Nettar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent No. 15.

Jitendra Sharma and P. Gour for Respondents Nos. 25-31, 33-38, 41-43, 46·48 and 51·55.

Respondent No. 58 in person.