UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. L P TIWARI
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on November 22,2006

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant
VERSUS
L.P. TIWARI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

U P S C VS. K RAJAIAH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRASANNANSHU VS. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR VICE CHANCELLOR, NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
DR. (SMT.) ALAKA NANDA DASH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-297] [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. JAI SINGH MEENA [LAWS(KER)-2019-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S K GOEL [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. POONACHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
HC (MIN) JAI PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-300] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF H P & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-79] [REFERRED]
RAVINDRA MURLIDHAR KALEKAR VS. MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2011-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA CHOUBEY VS. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CHH)-2023-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
IMLIKOKLA LONGCHAR VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-304] [REFERRED TO]
S PEER MOHAMED VS. REGISTRAR TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-244] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
SANT KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-363] [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. A MOHANAN [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
KOUSHIK CHAKRABORTY THAKUR VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA PATHANIA VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY SHIMLA [LAWS(HPH)-2012-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
P N PREMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-8-323] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Shri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No. 1 in the first matter and Shri DP. Dwivedi, respondent No. 1 in the second matter, were serving as State Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Both the said officers became eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service under the provisions of the I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) Regulation 3 of the said Regulations provides for the appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the Union Public Service Commission along with the following members as far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned:
(i) Chief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P;

(ii) Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests;

(iii) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Govt. of M.P.;

(iv) Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of M.P. and;

(v) A nominee of the Govt. of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.

All meetings of the Selection Committee are presided over by the Chairman/Member of the Union Public Service Commission.

(3.)In keeping with the Regulations, the Selection Committee classifies eligible State Forest Service Officers coming within the zone of consideration as "outstanding", "very good", "good" or "unfit" on an overall assessment of their service records. Thereafter, as per Regulation 5(4), the Selection Committee prepares a list by including the required number of names first from amongst officers classified as "outstanding" and then from amongst those classified as "very good", and thereafter from amongst those classified as "good". The names within each category are set in the order of their respective inter se seniority in the said Forest Service. The Annual Confidential Reports of the eligible officers form the basis on which such officers are categorized in the manner indicated above. However, while making an overall assessment, the Selection Committee also takes into account orders and remarks regarding appreciation for meritorious work done by the concerned officer. Similarly, orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks communicated to the officer and which have not been expunged are also taken into consideration while grading the officers.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.