JADAB CHANDRA NATH vs ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST on 15 October 2026

ORDER

PER: SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: 8.1 To set aside and quash the minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 21.11.2022 insofar as they relate to the non-consideration of the applicant for promotion to the Indian Forest Service against the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019.

8.2 To direct the respondents to produce the records, including the assessment sheets pertaining to the Selection Committee Meeting held on 21.11.2022.

8.3 To direct the Union Public Service Commission to convene a Review Selection Committee for fresh consideration of the applicant’s case for promotion to the Indian Forest Service against the vacancies of 2018 and 2019.

8.4 To grant the applicant notional promotion to the Indian Forest Service with all consequential benefits.

8.5 To pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

2. Facts of the Case

2.1. The applicant is a member of the Assam State Forest Service and was, at the relevant time, serving as Deputy Conservator of Forests under the Government of Assam. On 29.10.2020, he was placed under suspension following his arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As no departmental proceedings were initiated within the prescribed period, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 201/2022, pursuant to which the Government reviewed the suspension and reinstated him by order dated 18.05.2022.

2.2. The respondents neither concluded the contemplated disciplinary proceedings nor dropped them despite issuance of a show cause notice. The applicant instituted WP(C) No. 2232/2023 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court seeking expeditious conclusion or closure of the proceedings, stated to be pending.

2.3. The UPSC convened a Selection Committee Meeting on 21.11.2022 for preparation of the Select Lists for promotion of

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

eligible State Forest Service officers to the Indian Forest Service against the vacancies of 2017, 2018 and 2019. The applicant's case was considered for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019; several officers junior to him were included, but he was not recommended.

2.4. For the Select List of 2018, the applicant was considered at Sl. No. 8 in a zone of 9 SFS officers, assessed with reference to APARs for 2013-14 to 2017-18, and was overall assessed as ‘Good’ (individual years: G, G, G, VG, VG). For the Select List of 2019, he was considered at Sl. No. 2 in a zone of 15 officers, assessed with reference to APARs for 2014-15 to 2018-19, and was again overall assessed as ‘Good’; four officers junior to him, assessed as ‘Very Good’, were included instead. The Select Lists were approved by the Commission on 13.02.2023 and acted upon by notification dated 28.04.2023.

2.5. By communication dated 17.09.2024, the Inquiry Officer (Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS, Addl. PCCF) submitted a report dated 11.03.2024 stating that whether the charges of gross misconduct and criminal breach of trust would sustain depends on the outcome of Case No. 11/2020 under Section

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The departmental proceedings have been kept in abeyance pending that outcome.

2.6. As per Office Memorandum No. 22012/42/2023-IFS-II dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-R/2), a change of Select List or convening of a Review Selection Committee is to be undertaken by the UPSC on receipt of a proposal from the State Government or on orders of a court/tribunal. The Government of Assam had, by communication dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure-R/3), duly submitted the applicant's nomination, along with other eligible officers, for consideration.

3. Contentions of the Applicant

3.1. The Selection Committee relied upon his APARs without these having been communicated to him prior to the Selection Committee Meeting, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to seek review or upgradation of the recorded entries before they were taken into consideration for assessing his suitability.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

3.2. The respondents withheld his Integrity Certificate without authority of law, and such withholding materially influenced the Selection Committee's decision.

3.3. On the above premises, the proceedings of the Selection Committee, insofar as they relate to him, are arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, warranting quashing of the minutes to that extent and a direction for a Review Selection Committee.

3.4. In support, the applicant places reliance on: (i) R.P. Meena, DANICS-1995 v. Union of India, 2025 Supreme (Online) (CAT) 6213; (ii) Union of India v. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10;

(iii) UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 15; (iv) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, (1987) 2 SCC 602; and (v) Ajitsingh Jagansingh Yaduvanshi v. State of Gujarat, Gujarat High Court, C/SCA/19001/2017, dated 25.08.2025 — for the propositions that judicial review of DPC proceedings lies in appropriate circumstances, and that withholding of an integrity certificate is unjustified where no disciplinary or

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

criminal proceeding is pending against the officer concerned.

4. Contentions of the Respondents

4.1. Respondent No. 2 (UPSC): The Selection Committee Meeting was held strictly in accordance with the 1966 Regulations. The applicant was duly considered along with all eligible officers for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019 and was assessed as ‘Good’ on an overall holistic assessment of his service records for the preceding five years in each case. As officers with a higher overall grading were available within the statutory limit on vacancies, the applicant's name could not be included. The Select Lists were duly approved and acted upon, and no illegality or procedural irregularity has been committed.

4.2. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 (State authorities): The applicant's name was duly sponsored with all requisite records under the Promotion Regulations; once forwarded to the UPSC, the responsibility for assessing comparative merit and preparing the Select List rested exclusively with the Selection Committee. Disciplinary proceedings, together with related

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are pending against the applicant; the departmental proceedings have been kept in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal case. Review of a Select List can be undertaken only by the UPSC, in accordance with the applicable Regulations/OM dated 05.02.2024, or pursuant to orders of a competent court or tribunal.

4.3. Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) has placed on record a letter dated 18.07.2024 to attend the case on its behalf; no further written submission is on record from this respondent as extracted in the pleadings before the Tribunal.

4.4. The respondents collectively pray for dismissal of the Original Application.

5. Points for Determination

(i) . Whether the non-communication of the applicant's APARs prior to the Selection Committee Meeting dated 21.11.2022 vitiates the consideration of his case for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019.

(ii) . Whether the withholding of the applicant's Integrity Certificate was without authority of law, and, if so, whether

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

and to what extent it influenced the Selection Committee's assessment.

(iii) . Whether the Selection Committee's classification of the applicant as ‘Good’ (as against ‘Very Good’ accorded to the officers included) is open to interference by this Tribunal, having regard to the limited scope of judicial review over an expert body's evaluation.

(iv) . Whether the pendency of disciplinary proceedings (held in abeyance) and of a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant furnishes an independent, valid ground for his non-inclusion in the Select Lists, apart from and in addition to the grading question at (iii) above.

6. Findings 6.1 Non Communication of APARs: 6.1.1 It is clear that the applicant’s APARs/service records for the years reckonable for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019 were communicated to him only in July 2023 (after the Selection Committee Meeting of 21.11.2022, and after the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Select Lists were approved (13.02.2023) and notified (28.04.2023). This is contrary to the Department of Personnel & Training’s OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A)(Pt.II) dated 14.05.2009 and OM No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.A dated 13.04.2010, which require communication of the APAR entries and overall grading to the officer concerned, with an opportunity to represent, before the report is acted upon for purposes of a DPC/Selection Committee a requirement affirmed in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, and reiterated in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146. 6.1.2 The Union Public Service Commission’s written statement (paras 6.2–6.4, Annexure-IV & V) states that the State Government communicated the APARs in question to the applicant on 15.02.2020, but that the period for representing against the entries under Rule 11 of the Assam Services (Confidential) Rules had by then already elapsed, and that the State Government has certified the APARs furnished to the Commission as valid. The State of Assam’s written statement (Respondent No. 3) does not specifically rebut the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

applicant’s case of non-communication, beyond a bare denial. On this record, it is held that the APARs relied upon were not shown to the applicant within the representation window applicable to the years reckonable for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019, and were communicated to him only at a later date. This is reinforced by the Union Public Service Commission’s own guidelines for categorisation of State Forest Service officers under Regulations 5 & 6 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, circulated on 27.03.2017 (File No. 4/4/2017-AIS), which at para 5.2 provide that the Selection Committee may ignore adverse remarks in the confidential reports that have not been communicated to the officer concerned. The applicant having been denied the opportunity to seek upgradation of his overall grading before it was acted upon, the non- communication of his APARs vitiates the consideration of his case for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019. Point (i) is accordingly answered in favour of the applicant.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

6.2 — Integrity Certificate: 6.2.1 The written statement of the State of Assam (Respondent Nos. 3 & 4), at paras 11–12, states that a departmental proceeding and the criminal case (ACB PS Case No. 11/2020, u/s 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) were pending against the applicant as on 21.11.2022 (the date of the Selection Committee Meeting), and this has not been specifically rebutted in the applicant’s rejoinder. It is held that both the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were in fact pending against the applicant as on that date. On this footing, the withholding of the Integrity Certificate was not without any basis. The correct course, however, consistent with the sealed cover procedure explained in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, was for the Selection Committee to record its assessment of the applicant in a sealed cover to be opened depending on the outcome of the departmental proceeding and of Case No. 11/2020 and not to withhold the Integrity Certificate outright and treat that, without more, as a ground for his exclusion from the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Select Lists without any assessment being recorded. To this limited extent the adoption of outright withholding/exclusion in place of the sealed cover procedure Point (ii) is answered in favour of the applicant: it was the manner of withholding the Integrity Certificate, and not the pendency of proceedings as such, that was without authority of law. 6.3 — scope of interference with the ‘Good’ grading: 6.3.1 In view of the findings on Points (i) and (ii) above, the assessment underlying the applicant’s ‘Good’ grading requires to be redone by the Selection Committee itself, after due communication of his APARs and proper application of the sealed cover procedure; it is not necessary, nor would it be appropriate having regard to the limited scope of review recognised in A.K. Narula and K. Rajaiah above, for this Tribunal itself to substitute its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee. Point

(iii) does not survive for independent decision. 6.4 — pending proceedings as an independent ground: 6.4.1 For the reasons at the Finding on Point (ii) above, as revised, the pendency of both the departmental proceeding

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

and the criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act as on 21.11.2022 furnishes a relevant and independent factor governing the manner in which the applicant’s case is to be considered by the sealed cover procedure and not, by itself, a ground for his outright exclusion or non-inclusion without any assessment being recorded. Point (iv) is answered accordingly.

7. Order 7.1 For the foregoing reasons, the Original Application is allowed in part. The minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting dated 21.11.2022, insofar as they relate to the non- consideration of the applicant for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019, are set aside to that extent. 7.2 The State Government (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) is directed to communicate to the applicant the outstanding adverse remarks/entries in his APARs for the years reckonable for the Select Lists of 2018 and 2019, take his representation thereon, and finalise the said APARs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

7.3 The APARs so finalised shall be kept on record, to be placed before a Review Selection Committee as and when required. No purpose would be served in convening a Review Selection Committee at this stage as the applicant is not holding a valid Integrity Certificate on account of the Case No. 11/2020 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7.4 The applicant cannot be considered for notional promotion at this stage. It shall be open to the applicant to seek appropriate relief depending on the outcome of the Review Selection Committee, as and when convened. 7.5 The Original Application, along with M.A. 181/2025, stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. 7.6 No order as to costs.

(SANJIV KUMAR)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY