Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2537 (ALL)

Ram Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-12-13

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, JAYANT BANERJI

body2018
ORDER : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad to the extent that it denies him the designation of Professor. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner as emerging from the writ petition is that he was appointed as Lecturer, Political Science in Government Post Graduate College, Bageshwar, Almora vide Government Order dated 4.8.1990 through the then U.P. Public Service Commission. He joined his service and thereafter, he was given the Senior Grade of 3000-100-3500-125-5000 by order dated 12.11.1998 w.e.f. 20.08.1995. It is stated that the Government published a promotion list vide order dated 11.06.2001 in which his designation was shown as Principal and in this list the name of the petitioner was at Sl. no. 6. Thereafter, a selection grade list was published by the Government on 19.04.2003 in which the petitioner's name was shown as Reader/Associate Professor and he was shown as promoted as such w.e.f. 20.8.1999. In this list the name of the petitioner was at Sl. no. 5. According to the petitioner, his educational qualification is B.A. Hon's, L.L.B, M.A. Political Science, M.Phil, Ph.D. It is further stated that notices were sent to him on different dates i.e. 7.12.2004, 13.5.2005 and 25.5.2005 by the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (in short 'CSJMU') wherein his designation was shown as Principal, Government Degree College, Bidhuna, Auraiya, inviting him to various meetings. It is stated that a news item was also published in Newspaper 'Amar Ujala', 'Aaj' and 'Dainik Jagaran' with regard to public works of the petitioner in which his designation is shown as Principal, Rani Ahilyabai Holkar Government Degree College, Bidhuna and Government Degree College, Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar. Another letter was sent to the petitioner by the CSJMU, Kanpur dated 28.2.2005 in which also the petitioner was addressed as Principal, Government Degree College, Bidhuna, Auraiya. In the magazine 'Ishan' published by the Rani Ahilyabai Holkar Government Degree College, Bidhuna, Auraiya, the petitioner was referred to as Principal, Rani Ahilyabai Holkar Government Degree College. Another letter was sent to the petitioner by the CSJMU, Kanpur dated 28.2.2005 in which also the petitioner was addressed as Principal, Government Degree College, Bidhuna, Auraiya. In the magazine 'Ishan' published by the Rani Ahilyabai Holkar Government Degree College, Bidhuna, Auraiya, the petitioner was referred to as Principal, Rani Ahilyabai Holkar Government Degree College. It is further stated that by an order dated 8.9.2015, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Principal to the post of Lecturer, Political Science on grounds of compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar and others). His case is that as back as 29.1.2014 he has been addressed as Principal, Government Degree College, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahr in the letter of the Director, Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad. It is stated that a writ petition no. 14256 of 2014 (Hridayesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed in the High Court and in pursuance of the directions therein the salary of the petitioner was fixed as Lecturer, Political Science, Government Post Graduate College, Chunar, Mirzapur and a list was published on 25.01.2016 in which the name of the petitioner was at Sl. no. 4. On attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016 as Reader/Associate Professor, Political Science in Government Post Graduate College, Chunar, Mirzapur, a letter dated 1.8.2016 was sent by the Director, Higher Education to the Director, Pension Directorate for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner then sent an application to the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad for redressal of his grievance regarding promotion to the post of Principal and for payment of arrears of salary from 20.8.1999 to 17.06.2001 on the post of Reader/Associate Professor in the pay scale of 12000-420-18300. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed Writ petition no. 15656 of 2017 (Dr. Ram Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) relating to claim for grant of Selection grade and arrears of salary and promoting him as Principal/Professor. That writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 13.4.2017 with a direction to the Director, Higher Education, U.P. to take a decision in the matter within three months and if any amount is found due payable to the petitioner, the same shall also be paid to him. That writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 13.4.2017 with a direction to the Director, Higher Education, U.P. to take a decision in the matter within three months and if any amount is found due payable to the petitioner, the same shall also be paid to him. It is stated that on receipt of the order of the High Court, the Director, Higher Education directed the Principal, Government Post Graduate College, Chunar, Mirzapur vide order dated 12.8.2017 to pay the dues of salary of Selection grade to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 25,234/-for the period from 20.8.1999 to 17.06.2001. The petitioner has made allegations in para 45 of the writ petition that some persons namely, Brahma Dev, Dr. Sandhya Rani, Dr. Chaman Lal and Dr. Arvind Ram were promoted on the post of Principal in Government Degree Colleges but they were not qualified for the said post. 3. Per contra, the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer, Political Science in the Government Degree College vide Government Order dated 4.8.1990 and that his services are governed by the U.P. Higher Education Service Rules, 1980. He was provided Selection grade in the U.G.C. pay scale on 20.08.1999 and was promoted as Under Graduate Principal of the Government Degree College in 2001 and assumed charge on 18.06.2001. It is stated that as Principal of the Government Degree College, the petitioner was also Drawing and Disbursing Officer at the College of posting but did not draw any arrears of salary, although he had full authority as DDO to draw salary but for reasons best known to him he did not submit any bill for arrears of salary for almost 14 years that he was posted as Principal. It is stated that the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2017 for arrears of salary with regard to promotion in the Selection Grade of Lecturer was considered and the Principal of the Government Degree College, Chunar, Mirzapur where the petitioner was last posted was directed vide letter dated 12.6.2017 to release the arrears of salary due to the petitioner which was also duly released by the College on 23.6.2017. It is also stated that vide Government Order dated 08.09.2015, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Principal, Government Degree College to the post of Reader/Associate Professor, Political Science in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27.04.2012 passed in Civil Appeal no. 2608 of 2011 (U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others). The case of the respondents is that if the petitioner is claiming the designation of the post of Professor/Principal then he has to fulfill the criteria of merit-cum-seniority and has to considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC'). 4. In the affidavit filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad dated 25.8.2018, the case of the respondents is that promotion for the post of Principal in the Government Degree Colleges of the State is held in terms of Category 5 of Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Rules, 1985 (amended in 2008). Till the academic session of 201516, total expected vacancies of the post of Principal in the Government Degree Colleges was 108 as would be also be seen from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated that as per the U.P. Government Servant (criteria for appointment by promotion) (third amendment) Rules, 2010, “merit” is the criteria for promotion to the post of Principal in a Government Degree College. It is further stated that as per the Uttar Pradesh (for the Post Outside the purview of the State Public Services Commission) Promotion Eligibility List Rules 1986, promotion to the 108 posts of Principal in the Government Degree Colleges from the existing seniority list of Lecturers of the Government Degree Colleges, three times that number has to be called to form the eligibility list. In the present case 324 candidates were short-listed. The position of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 63 his seniority being at Sl No. at 249. The Selection Committee which was constituted to consider the promotion for the post of Principal of the Government Degree Colleges vide its minutes dated 3.3.2016 has recommended promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis by placing candidates scoring 18 or more marks calculated on the basis of character roll of last ten years in 'attiuttam' (Excellent) category. The Selection Committee which was constituted to consider the promotion for the post of Principal of the Government Degree Colleges vide its minutes dated 3.3.2016 has recommended promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis by placing candidates scoring 18 or more marks calculated on the basis of character roll of last ten years in 'attiuttam' (Excellent) category. In this score of 18 marks, the petitioner's score is only 16.55 marks and being below 18 marks he was placed in the 'uttam' (Good) category and, therefore, he was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Principal. 5. In another affidavit filed by Assistant Director, Directorate of Higher Education dated 11.09.2018 on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the work and conduct of an employee for entry in the annual character roll grading pattern is as under:- (a) Outstanding (Uttkrisht) (b) Excellent (Atti-Uttam) (c) Good (Uttam/Achha) (d) Satisfactory (Santoshjanak) (e) Bad/Unsatisfactory (Aasantoshjanak) 6. It is also stated that for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Principal of the Government Degree/Post Graduate College, the DPC has followed the pattern of catergorising candidates on Excellent or Good basis for the last ten years and on the basis of that score which has been in practice for the last ten years, the total quality points calculated on the basis of available annual character roll of the petitioner is 16.55. It is stated that the DPC met on 3.3.2016 to consider the candidature of eligible persons to 108 posts of Principals at Government Degree Colleges on the quality point of 18 and above to be placed in the Excellent category. The DPC recommended six Lecturers, namely, Dr. Rishi Ram Singh, Dr. Amit Bharadwaj, Dr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Dr. Ram Prakash, Smt. Pramod Kumari and Smt. Shaifali Singh who scored 18 points and Dr. Dilip Kapoor and Dr. Uttam Kumar Singh who scored 30 quality points. Since, the petitioner's personal score was only 16.55, he was not found eligible for promotion. 7. I have heard Dr. Ram Pal Singh, petitioner in person and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 8. Dilip Kapoor and Dr. Uttam Kumar Singh who scored 30 quality points. Since, the petitioner's personal score was only 16.55, he was not found eligible for promotion. 7. I have heard Dr. Ram Pal Singh, petitioner in person and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 8. The facts regarding the petitioner's working as Under Graduate Principal in Degree College in 2001 or his demotion from the post of Principal to the post of Reader/Associate Professor, Political Science by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) is not disputed. 9. The original records have been given to the Court by the learned Standing Counsel in sealed cover. 10. A perusal of the original records shows that in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2006-07, the petitioner was given the remark 'Uttkrisht' (Outstanding), for the year 2007-08, also he was given the entry 'Uttkrisht' (Outstanding), however, for the year 2008-09, there is no entry. For the year 2009-10, again he has been given the remark 'Uttkrisht' (Outstanding); for the year 2010-11, he has been given the remark 'Atti-Uttam' (Excellent); for the year 2011-12, he has been characterized as 'Atti-Uttam' (Excellent); for the year 2012-13-'Uttkrisht' (Outstanding), however, for the year 2013-14, we find that no remark regarding his category has been given because his total working was of only one month and twenty two days in the Government Degree College, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar. We find that though for the year 201314, no remark of category could have been given since minimum working of three months is required but all the ACRs are duly communicated to all the employees including the petitioner and he has a right to file his objection against the same. For the year 200809 & 2013-14, if no entry has been given to him he could have represented against the same which he has not done. 11. We further find that the DPC formulated a policy of short-listing the candidates on the basis of the entries in the ACRs of each of the candidates. The DPC considered the record of 505 candidates and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 63 with seniority determination at 249 in this list of persons. 11. We further find that the DPC formulated a policy of short-listing the candidates on the basis of the entries in the ACRs of each of the candidates. The DPC considered the record of 505 candidates and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 63 with seniority determination at 249 in this list of persons. The Committee devised its own formula for categorisation of the candidates in two different categories, namely, 'Atti-Uttam' and 'Uttam' on the basis of the ACRs and after considering the petitioner's ACRs of the last 10 years he has been categorised as 'Uttam'. The grading of 'Atti-Uttam' or 'Uttam' awarded by the DPC is not be confused with the remark of 'Atti-Uttam' or 'Uttam' category given in the ACR by the Reporting Officer which will be clear from the fact that the petitioner was never given the grade of 'Uttam' in any year but rather he was 'Uttkrisht' or 'Atti-Uttam'. It is on this basis that the DPC also devised the formula of giving points, maximum being 30 and minimum being 18 and on this yardstick the petitioner obtained 16.55 marks. The law is well settled that for purposes of selecting the candidates, the selection body or the DPC, as the case may be, may devise its own method to give marks or grade or points, as the case may be, and the same if uniformly applied to all the persons appearing at that selection or being considered by the concerned DPC cannot be invalidated on the ground that there is no such provision in the Rule for the same. 12. In (2008) 1 SCC 362 , B. Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi Vs Union of India and others, the Supreme Court has held that short-listing can be resorted to if the number of candidates is large and it is not possible to interview each one of them. Paragraph 15 and 16 of the judgment read as under:- “15. It is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted by the Selection Body vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another 1994(6) SCC 293 (vide paras 6, 8, 9 and 13) and Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar and another 1993(2) SCC 310 . 16. It is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted by the Selection Body vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another 1994(6) SCC 293 (vide paras 6, 8, 9 and 13) and Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar and another 1993(2) SCC 310 . 16. Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. For example, if for one or two posts there are more than 1000 applications received from eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of shortlisting can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is no mention of short-listing in the rules or in the advertisement.” 13. In (2005) 10 SCC 15 , UPSC Vs. K. Rajaiah and others, the Supreme Court has held that the Selection Committee is not required to record reasons for giving a lessor grading to a particular candidate. Relevant paragraph 9 of the judgment is extracted below:- “9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 1806 ]. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed "even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an Examiner to record reasons for the selection or non selection of the person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Das Vs. This Court then observed "even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an Examiner to record reasons for the selection or non selection of the person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Das Vs. Union of India [1986 (Suppl.) SCC 617] at Page 633." In the next paragraph, the learned Judges indicated as to what is expected of the Selection Committee, in the following words: "we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administration action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary" That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so called down gradation of the first 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 the 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 confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision.” 14. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision.” 14. In (1994) 6 SCC 293 , Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, it was held by the Supreme Court that in the Selection Board or the Commission can decide what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. Relevant paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 are extracted below:- “6. The question which is to be answered is as to whether in the process of short-listing, the Commission has altered or substituted the criteria or the eligibility of a candidate to be considered for being appointed against the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court. It may be mentioned at the outset that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates from amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate. 7. ...... 8. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. 7. ...... 8. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if large number of candidates are interviewed each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on basis of the criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed. If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview. It appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available vacancies. 9. In Kothari Committee's Report on the "Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services Examination" it has also been pointed out in respect of interview where a written test is also held as follows: "The number of candidates to be called for interview, in order of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think, twice the number of vacancies to be filled ...... In this background, it is all the more necessary to fix the limit of the applicants who should be called for interview where there is no written test, on some rational and objective basis so that personality and merit of the persons who are called for interview are properly assessed and evaluated. It need not be pointed out that this decision regarding short-listing the number of candidates who have applied for the post must be based not on any extraneous consideration, but only to aid and help the process of selection of the best candidates among the applicants for the post in question. This process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or prospectus. In substance and reality, this process of short-listing is part of the process of selection. This process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or prospectus. In substance and reality, this process of short-listing is part of the process of selection. Once the applications are received and the Selection Board or the Commission applies its mind to evolve any rational and reasonable basis, on which the list of applicants should be short-listed, the process of selection commences, If with five years of experience an applicant is eligible, then no fault can be found with the Commission if the applicants having completed seven and half years of practice are only called for interview because such applicants having longer period of practice, shall be presumed to have better experience. This process will not be in conflict with the requirement of Section 8(3)(c) which prescribes the eligibility for making an application for the post in question. In a sense Section 8(3)(c) places a bar that no person having less than five years of practice as an advocate or a pleader shall be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. But if amongst several hundred applicants, a decision is taken to call for interview only those who have completed seven and half years of practice, it is neither violative nor in conflict with the requirement of Section 8(3) (c) of the Act.” 15. In (2008) 2 SCC 119 , M.V. Thimmaiah and others Vs Union Public Service Commission and others, the Supreme Court in paragraph 21 has held that normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. Paragraph 21 and 30 of the judgment reads as under:- “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides 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 sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the appellants has taken us through various following decisions of this Court. (i) Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, (2003) 6 SCC 675 . (ii) P.M.Bayas V. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 319 . (iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (1985) 4 SCC 417 . (iv) Ajay Hasia & Ors. V. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722 . (v) Union Public Service Commission v. S.Thiagarajan & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 548 . Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court. (i) Dr.G.Sarana V. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 583. (ii) Mrs. Kunda S.Kadam v. Dr.K.K.Soman & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 355 . (iii) Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & Anr. V R.K.Sharma & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 74. Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court. (i) Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836 . (ii) Lila Dhar V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 159 . (iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (1985) 4 SCC 417 . (iv) R.S.Dass V. Union of India & Ors.etc. 1986 (Supp) SCC 617. (v) State of U.P. V. Rafiquddin & Ors. Etc. 1987 (Supp) SCC 401. (vi) Union Public Service Commission V. Hiranyalal Dev & Ors. Etc. (1988) 2 SCC 242 . (vii) Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1983) 3 SCC 241. (viii) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. V. Dr.B.S.Mahajan & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305 . (ix) National Institute of Mental Health And Neuro Sciences v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481. (x) Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C.Shukla & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 17 . (xi) P.M.Bayas v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (1993) 3 SCC 319 (xii) C.P.Kalra v. Air India through its Managing Director, Bombay & Ors. 1994 Supp. (ix) National Institute of Mental Health And Neuro Sciences v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481. (x) Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C.Shukla & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 17 . (xi) P.M.Bayas v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (1993) 3 SCC 319 (xii) C.P.Kalra v. Air India through its Managing Director, Bombay & Ors. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 454 (xiii) Anil Katiyar (Mrs.) v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 280 . (xiv) All India State Bank OfficersFederation & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (1997) 9 SCC 151 . (xv) Union of India & Anr. V. N.Chandrasekharan & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 694 . (xvi) Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 786 . (xvii) K.H.Siraj v, High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395 . 22. ….. 23. ….. 24. ….. 25. …. 26. ….. 27. …... 28. ….. 29. ….. 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an appellate authority to call for the personal records and constitute selection committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the Courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the over all view of the ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an appellate authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in R.S.Dass (supra)[ 1986 (Supp.) SCC 617] wherein at paragraph 28 it was held as follows: “28.....It is true that where merit is the sole basis of promotion, the power of selection becomes wide and liable to be abused with less difficulty. But that does not justify presumption regarding arbitrary exercise of power. But that does not justify presumption regarding arbitrary exercise of power. The machinery designed for preparation of Select List under the regulations for promotion to All India Service, ensures object and impartial selection. The Selection Committee is constituted by high ranking responsible officers presided over by Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission. There is no reason to hold that they would not act in fair and impartial manner in making selection. The recommendations of the Selection Committee are scrutinized by the State Government and if it finds any discrimination in the selection it has power to refer the matter to the Commission with its recommendations. The Commission is under a legal obligation to consider the views expressed by the State Government along with the records of officers, before approving the Select List. The Selection Committee and the Commission both include persons having requisite knowledge, experience and expertise to assess the service records and ability to adjudge the suitability of officers. In this view we find no good reasons to hold that in the absence of reasons the selection would be made arbitrary. Where power is vested in high authority there is a presumption that the same would be exercised in a reasonable manner and if the selection is made on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner the courts have ample power to strike down the same and that is an adequate safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power.” 16. In the present case the petitioner has not challenged the grading system adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the grade point awarded to the petitioner by the DPC. So far as the claim for grant of arrears of salary is concerned, a sum of Rs. 25,234/-has already been paid to the him on 23.6.2017 as also stated in the impugned order itself. The claim of the petitioner for being granted the designation of Professor has been rejected on the ground that there is no such provision in Government or Non-Government Colleges for granting the designation of Professor to Principals. The petitioner has not shown us any Rule or provision in the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985 or any other Government Order that provides for conferment of designation of Professor on a Principal of a Degree College. 17. The petitioner has not shown us any Rule or provision in the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985 or any other Government Order that provides for conferment of designation of Professor on a Principal of a Degree College. 17. For reasons aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 9.8.2017. 18. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 19. The original records furnished to the Court by Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel are being returned to him.