Parimala Hana Nutan IPS vs HOME AFFAIRS on 6 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“…Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interests of justice be pleased to declare the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in non-considering the representations dt. 25.01.2025, 07.05.2025 and 27.7.2025 made by the Applicant wherein the Applicant requested to consider her case for promotion in Select Committee Meeting-2010 (SCM-2010 instead of SCM-2012) wherein she was made unfit on the basis of un-communicated adverse remarks of 'satisfactory' and marking as Average which grading does not exist for the year 2005-2006 and for the period 01- 04-2006 to 31-10-2006 and promoted the batchmates and juniors to the Applicant and the Respondent No.3 failed to reconsider the case of the Applicant as the said adverse remarks were expunged by the Respondent No.7 by G. O. Rt. 667 dt. 4.4.2008 by not convening review SCM is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further the said action is contrary to lawdeclared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 7631 of 2002 dt. 12.5.2008 in Dev Dutt Vs Union of India and set aside the same;

b) Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to convene the review SCM and consider the case of the Applicant based on the expunged adverse remarks by the Respondent No.7 and promote the Applicant to the post of IPS in SCM-2010 itself, wherein the batchmates and juniors to the Applicant were promoted with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was eligible for consideration for appointment to the Indian Police Service by promotion in the Select List of 2010. However, her case was apparently rejected on the ground that she was declared “Unfit” by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 27.10.2011. It is further submitted that, subsequently, the Applicant was considered and found fit for appointment to the Indian Police Service by promotion in the Select List of 2012 and was accordingly appointed to the IPS.

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

3. Vide Notification dated 16.03.2015, the Applicant was appointed to the Indian Police Service by promotion pursuant to her inclusion in the Select List of 2012. Subsequently, her seniority/year of allotment was also determined and allotted vide order dated 12.04.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the Applicant that, in fact, the adverse remarks which had adversely affected the Applicant's case while she was being considered for the Select List of 2010, had already been challenged by her and, subsequently, the said adverse remarks were expunged vide G.O. Rt. No. 667 dated 04.04.2008. However, the said order expunging the adverse remarks was not brought to the notice of the Selection Committee while considering the Applicant's case for the Select List of 2010. It is specifically submitted that, upon examination of the matter, the competent authority had directed that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the Applicant be expunged. The relevant portion of G.O. Rt. No. 667 dated 04.04.2008 reads as under: “3. Government hereby expunge the above mentioned adverse remarks recorded in the After examination of the entire matter with reference to the records avallable, the Annual. Confidential Reports of Smt J. Parlimala Hana Nutan, formerly SDPO, Madanapalliri for the year ended 31.03.2006 and for the period form 1.4.2006 to 31.10.2006.

4. up action in the matter. The Director General of Police, A.P. Hyderabad is requested to take further follow up action in the matter.”

5. It is the case of the Applicant that, no doubt, the five years’ records relevant for consideration of her candidature were examined by the Selection Committee; however, such records were examined after the adverse remarks forming part thereof had already been expunged by the competent authority, as reflected in the aforesaid G.O. Rt. No. 667 dated 04.04.2008.

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

6. For the Select List of 2010, prepared against 15 vacancies, the name of the Applicant was considered at Sl. No. 23 amongst the zone of consideration comprising 26 eligible officers. Upon consideration of her service records for the preceding five years, i.e., from 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Applicant was assessed overall as “Unfit” for inclusion in the Select List of 2010, principally on account of the “Average” (below “Good”) grading in her ACRs for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 (for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.10.2006). But the aforesaid adverse remarks in the ACRs had already been expunged by the State Government vide order dated 04.04.2008. It is the case of the Applicant that the factum of such expunction ought to have been brought to the notice of the UPSC by the State Government while the Applicant’s case was being considered by the Selection Committee on 27.10.2011.

7. The stand of Respondent No. 7–State Government, in reply statement is as under: “7. Upon receipt of the Applicant's representation dated 08.02.2008, the competent authority (Respondent No.7 at the time) examined the matter. After obtaining the remarks of the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, and after due consideration, the Government of Andhra Pradesh expunged the adverse remarks recorded in the Applicant's ACRs for both the aforesaid periods vide G.O. Rt. No. 667, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 04.04.2008. The said G.O. was communicated to the DGP, AP, for further follow- up action.

8. It is respectfully submitted that the said G.O.RL.No.667 dated 04.04.2008 specifically ondered only the expunction of the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs. The said G.O. did not contain any express direction for up-gradation or modification of the overall grading of "Satisfactory recorded in the said ACRs.

9. It is further respectfully submitted that the communication of expunction vide G.O.Rt.No.667 dt.04.04.2008 was addressed to the Director General & Inspector General of Police, AP, for further action. The State Government fulfilled its duty by expunging the adverse remarks a prayed.

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

12. While the Applicant submits that she ought to have been considered in SCM- 2010 itself, in is respectfully submitted that (a) the expunction order of 04.04.2008 did not contain any direction for up-gradation or modification of the overall "Satisfactory" grading; (b) the Select List of 2010 was prepared after duly taking the expunction order into consideration, and (c) the grading of "Satisfactory" (Average/below Good) in the ACRs for the relevant years was retained, leading to the Applicant's overall assessment as "Unfit" for inclusion in the Select List of 2010. These are matters within the exclusive domain and knowledge of the UPSC.”

8. The stand of respondent no.4 in reply statement is as under: “10. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant submitted a representation dt. 27.7.2025 requesting for re-fixation of her seniority as 2006 on par with her batchmates and her representation was forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi for appropriate action vide Govt.Letter.No.308/Spl.B/A3/2025-1,G.A.(SPL.B) Dept., Dt: 10.09.2025. But no further communication received so far.”

9. The averment made by Respondent no.3, in the reply statement is as under:

“7.5 It is further respectfully submitted that, the Selection Committee goes through the service records of the eligible officers and makes its assessment after deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in the various columns recorded by the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer/Accepting Authority in the ACRs for different years and then finally arrives at the classification to be assigned to each officer. For making an overall relative assessment, the Committee does not depend solely on the grading recorded by the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer/Accepting Authority, but makes an independent assessment of the service records of the eligible officers. The Selection Committee takes into account, orders regarding appreciation for meritorious work done by the concerned officers. Similarly, the Committee also considers any orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks communicated to the officer, which, even after due consideration of his representation, have not been completely expunged. Thus, in accordance with Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations, the Selection Committee classifies the eligible officers as "Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' or 'Unfit', as the case may be, on an overall

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

relative assessment of their service records as made available by the State Government 7,6 It is further respectfully submitted that the matter relating to assessments made by the Selection Committee has been contended before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in a number of cases. In the case of Nutan Arvind Vs. Union of India and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "When a high level Committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion. this court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority."

[(1996) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 488)

7.7. In the case of UPSC Vs. K Rajaiah and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under:- "That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so called down gradation of the 1" respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term "down gradation" is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and 'unfit' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-94. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons: But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confined to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5 (4), it is not a legal requirement that reasonsshould be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision."

[2005 AIR SCW 3275]

7.8 In the matter of UPSC vs. H.L. Dey and others. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

"How to categorise in the light of the relevant records and what norms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the functions of the Selection Committee. The jurisdiction to make the selection is vested in the Selection Committee."

[AIR 1988 SC 1069]

7.9 In a judgment dated 13.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5883-5891 of 2007 filed by MV Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, it has been observed that:- "9. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of malafides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sits in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidate nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion."

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. It is our considered opinion that the State Government bore the initial responsibility to inform the Selection Committee of all pertinent facts regarding the Applicant. The Applicant's candidacy was neither adequately presented to nor highlighted for the Selection Committee's attention. This is especially significant given that the negative remarks for the applicable years had been formally removed by an order dated April 4, 2008, well before the Selection Committee evaluated the Applicant for the 2010 Select List on October 27, 2011. Furthermore, notwithstanding the position adopted by Respondent No. 7, no subsequent measures were implemented, and these crucial details were not disclosed to the UPSC during its selection process and assessment of the Applicant for the Select List.

12. As previously emphasized, the respondents were obligated to implement the required consequential and follow-up measures. Nevertheless, the omission of these

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

actions at the critical juncture led to unfair treatment and hostile discrimination toward the Applicant. If the expunction of the negative remarks had been communicated to the Selection Committee in a timely manner, and if the Applicant’s candidacy had been evaluated using the rectified records, there would have been no grounds for labeling her as "Unfit," and her inclusion in the 2010 Select List should have been secured.

13. Furthermore, it is observed that the Applicant met the necessary eligibility requirements for her candidacy to be evaluated, based on her five-year service record leading up to the 2010 Select List evaluation, once the negative comments for that timeframe were removed. As previously mentioned, neglecting the removal of these adverse remarks during the appraisal process led to a flawed evaluation of her situation. Given these circumstances and the failure to properly account for the deleted negative entries, the respondents' actions are indefensible.

14. We also take note of the fact that, in similar circumstances, a junior officer, namely K. Narayan Naik, belonging to the ST category, had also approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 413/2026, which came to be allowed on 08.07.2026. In the said matter, the Tribunal, while considering the issue, made the following observations: “7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the ACR grading of 'Average' for the year 2007-2008 was a matter of record at the time of Selection Committee Meeting held on 27.10.2011 and in view of the said 'Average' grading the applicant was assessed as 'Unfit' by the Selection Committee for the Select List 2010. In regard to the contention of the applicant about non-communication of the 'Average' grading in the ACR for 2007-2008, the learned counsel submitted that it is a matter between the applicant and the authorities who recorded/ reviewed the ACR. However, in view of the upgrade of the ACR grading by order dt. 18.07.2014, the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 11.02.2015 for preparation of year-wise Select Lists of 2011, 2012 and 2013, assessed the service records of the applicant for the preceding five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the applicant was overall assessed as 'Very Good'.

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

Accordingly, his name was included in the Select List of 2012 for promotion to the IPS of AP cadre. The said list was approved by the Commission on 13.03.2015 and acted upon by the Government of India, MHA, vide Notification dt. 16.03.2015. Thus, the applicant's name was included in the Select List of 2012, which was the earliest feasible opportunity after the upgrade of his ACR grading and he has not been deprived of promotion to the IPS. Learned counsel for State of Andhra Pradesh stated that the State of Andhra Pradesh have already communicated the upgraded ACR to the concerned including the UPSC and the matter of convening a Review SCM for a particular Select List year is within the domain and discretion of the UPSC, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The role of State Government is limited to forwarding the requisite documents and records and the UPSC and the MHA are better placed to answer whether the procedure for convening Review SCM for the select list of 2010 was warranted in the case of the applicant, following the directions issued by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicant is only seeking a direction to Respondent No.3 UPSC for convening review SCM for considering his name for the Select List of 2010 and there is no relief sought against the State of Andhra Pradesh.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 i.e. UPSC addressed on the ground that the applicant's case has already been considered, taking into account the overall performance, which was assessed as 'Very Good', and the Committee included the name of the applicant in the Select List of 2012 for promotion to IPS of AP Cadre and the said select list was approved by the Commission on 13.03.2015 and acted upon by the Government of India, MHA, vide notification dt. 16.03.2015. Therefore, no review is necessary. Further, the applicant's juniors also got promoted.

9. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record, the issue that arises for consideration is: Whether the upgradation of the Applicant's ACR grading for the period from 22.09.2007 to 01.01.2008 from 'Average' to 'Very Good' vide G.O.Rt.No.873 dt. 18.07.2014 consequent upon the said entry being admittedly un-communicated to him prior to the Selection Committee entitles the Applicant to a Review Selection Meeting dt. 27.10.2011 Committee Meeting for the Select List of 2010?

10. When the applicant's counsel has referred to the guidelines issued by the UPSC dt. 27.03.2017 and the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in OA No. 434/2023, vide order dt. 25.07.2023, and submitted that

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

despite the direction of this Tribunal, Respondent No.3 is not ready to conduct review SCM, learned counsel for R-3 UPSC Mr. M. Nagaraju has made a very fair submission that the UPSC will conduct Review SCM as per rules, for which, he sought eight weeks time. Learned counsel further submitted that he would ensure that Review SCM is conducted within the said period in accordance with guideline at para G(9) issued by the UPSC.

11. It is not in dispute that the applicant's ACR for the year 2007-2008 was upgraded in 2014 and the case of the applicant was considered by the UPSC convening SCM for the select list 2012. However, the upgraded ACR of the applicant for the year 2007-2008 from 'Average' to 'Very Good' made him eligible to be considered for Select List 2010. It is further to be noted that it is completely within the domain of the UPSC/ Ministry of Home Affairs to consider the case of the applicant for Select List 2010by convening Review SCM. However, right of the applicant to be considered cannot be denied.

12. It is to be noted that the UPSC Guidelines dt. 27.03.2017 relating to retention of earlier year grading by the Review SCM read thus:

"9. The Promotion Regulations do not provide for suo-motu review of the Select List already prepared, approved by the Commission and acted upon by the Central Govt. However, sometimes, on specific directions of the competent courts, the Select Lists are required to be reviewed. While convening Review SCMs in compliance with the directions of courts on account of revision of seniority or to rectify some procedural irregularity that crept in the proceedings of the original Selection Committee, if the officer has already been considered by an earlier Selection Committee, in the first instance the State Government may be requested to indicate whether there is any material change in the relevant record of the concerned officer after consideration of his case by the initial Committee for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service/Indian Forest Service. In the event the State Government certifies that there is no material change in the service records of the officer in the relevant years, the Review Committee may not change the grading of the officer already assigned by the earlier Committee. In exceptional circumstances, in case the Selection Committee recommends any change in the grading, specific reasons for the change should be appropriately recorded by the Review Committee in the minutes."

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

13. Final Order

In the result, the OA is allowed with a direction to the Respondent No.3 (UPSC) to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting for the Select List of 2010 in accordance with Para G(9) of the UPSC Guidelines dt. 27.03.2017, and consider the case of the Applicant on the basis of the upgraded grading of 'Very Good', within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and, if he is found 'fit', the respondents shall grant him all consequential benefits - promotion, seniority/year of allotment, and other service benefits - in accordance with applicable rules and instructions governing such cases.

14. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

15. It is further observed that the Applicant's situation is more favorable than that of K. Narayan Naik. Specifically, while the unfavorable comments regarding the aforementioned officer were removed at a subsequent period, the negative remarks concerning the Applicant had already been cleared before the Selection Committee evaluated her candidacy on October 27, 2011.

16. In the aforesaid terms, the O.A. is allowed. The UPSC is directed to convene a Review Selection Committee in respect of the Applicant and to consider her case for inclusion in the Select List of 2010 in accordance with the applicable rules. The concerned State Government shall also take the necessary consequential and follow- up action, including referring the matter to the UPSC along with the relevant records and the order expunging the adverse remarks, so as to enable the UPSC to undertake the review exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines.

17. Upon such reconsideration, if the Applicant is found fit for inclusion in the Select List of 2010, she shall be extended the consequential benefits, including notional benefits, in accordance with law. The actual monetary benefits, if any, shall

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR

be admissible from the date on which the Applicant would have become entitled thereto upon such inclusion/appointment, subject to the applicable rules.

18. The concerned State Government shall pass appropriate consequential orders and take all necessary steps arising out of the expunction of the adverse remarks, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, within the stipulated period.

19. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

20. The O.A. is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pb/

O.A. is disposed of on

: 06.10.2026 Order dictated on

: 06.10.2026

2, SERIALNU MBER= PRACHI BHASK AR