MANGSATABAM HAREKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this O.A. applicant has made a prayer to reexamine or modify the Government Notification dated 1.3.2012 notifying and appointing respectively members of the State Civil Service of Manipur to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and re -examine and modify the recommendation and procedure followed by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22.12.2011. The applicant is a Member of Manipur Civil Service (MCS), whose name figured at Sl. No. 11 in the final list of inter -se -seniority of all Manipur Civil Service Officers notified on 1.6.2010. A Selection Committee chaired by a Member of the UPSC was held on 22.12.2011 to assess the suitability of MCS Officers for promotion to the IAS of the Joint Manipur Tripura Cadre (Manipur segment) against the vacancies of 2009 and 2010. Against 12 vacancies for the year 2010 the Selection Committee carried out assessment in respect of 17 MCS Officers, whose names were in the zone of consideration and assessed them as 'Outstanding', 'Very Good' and 'Good' on the basis of overall relative assessment and the service records. In the seniority list the applicant was at Sl. No. 5 but in the final select list he was placed at Sl. No. 6 as two of his juniors namely, Kh. Raghumani Singh and T. Ranjit Singh originally at Sl. Nos. 8 & 9 were graded as 'Outstanding' while the applicant was graded as 'Very Good'. In accordance with the procedure followed by the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) the officers graded as 'Outstanding' are placed above the officers who are graded as 'Very good'. The grievance of the applicant is that according to the information which has he had a consistent grading of 'Outstanding' in the ACRs during the years 2004 -05 to 2009 -10, the ACRs that were considered by the SCM. However, the Committee in violation of the rules and guidelines down graded his overall performance to very good while they graded two of his juniors as 'Outstanding' thereby making them senior to the applicant in the final select list.

(2.) DR . R.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant in his submission stated that the applicant was consistently getting outstanding grading for the last 10 years and the ACRs for the year 2009 -10 was reviewed and accepted by the present Chief Secretary who also was a Member of the Selection Committee. Similarly for the year 2005 -06 another Member of the Selection Committee who was the reporting officer who gave him 'Outstanding' grading in the ACR. He earned 'Outstanding' grading in the ACRs written by a number of reporting, reviewing and accepting officers. Therefore, the act of the Selection Committee in down grading the overall assessment to 'Very Good' was contradictory to his overall performance and was unfair, unjust and discriminatory. The learned Counsel also contended that there was no consistency in the assessment matrix across two SCMs as evidenced by the overall grading given to Sri H. Gyan Prakash as 'Very Good' in the year 2009 and 'Outstanding' in the year 2010. Similarly, Sri Athem Muivah was declared 'Unfit' during the year 2009 and was given 'Very Good' during the year 2010. It was also argued that the act of down gradation of his overall assessment to 'Very Good' from his consistent performance as 'Outstanding' reflected in the ACRs for the relevant period required to be communicated to the applicant, which was not done. In this context the Apex Court decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., : 2008 (3) SLJ 244 (SC) : (2008) 8 SCC 725, was relied upon. Learned Counsel also alleged that the Selection Committee was influenced by the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State Government of Manipur which was headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, which action was violative of rules and procedure prescribed for the SCM.

(3.) MR . B.P. Sahu assisted by Ms. Usha Das, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 and filed a common written statement. The respondent No. 7 has also filed a separate written statement. All the above private respondents have primarily relied on the submissions made by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and the respondents. The basic issues that need to be considered is (i) whether the Selection Committee was right in awarding 'Very Good' grading to the applicant, (ii) whether there was any requirement for such down gradation to be communicated, (iii) whether giving different grading to some officers by the same SCM for different years in the same meeting reflects inconsistency and lack of application of mind. The procedure for assessment of records of all eligible candidates by SCM has already been explained in the submission of the official respondents. The SCM has to examine the service records of each of the eligible officer and make their own assessment after deliberation on the quality of the officers and would not be guided merely by the overall grading. It is therefore possible that an officer who has scored consistently a particular grading may get upgraded/down graded in overall grading given by the SCM. It is seen from the same assessment sheet in which two of the juniors of the applicant namely, Kh. Raghumani Singh and T. Ranjit Singh have been given 'Outstanding' assessment, another officer namely, Shri Ningam Chamroy who has also consistently earned 'Outstanding' grading in the ACRs has been given overall assessment as 'Very Good'. With regard to the consistency it is observed that Shri Athem Muivah has earned ACR gradings of 'Very Good', 'Outstanding', 'Outstanding', 'Outstanding', 'Very Good' and 'Very Good' for six years starting 2004 -05 to 2009 -10. However, he has been graded as unfit for the year 2009. The minutes of the SCM dated 22.12.2011 has noted in Para 5.4 that "as intimated by the State Government penalty as indicated below have been imposed during the last 10 years on the following eligible officer: