I.A.S./I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955- Regulation 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 5(4) & 5(5)-Effect of non-compliance with the mandatory duty imposed by Reg. 5(5)-If seniority should be dominant factor-Competence of State Government to pass reversion orders.

Natural justice-Notice to superseded officers if necessary.

Regulation 4(1) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 provides for the Selection Committee to consider in every year the cases of all substantive members of the respective services who, on the first day of January of that year, had completed not less than 8 years of continuous service in a post of Deputy Collector/Deputy Superintendent of Police. Under reg. 5(1) the Committee has to prepare a list of such members as satisfied the condition in reg. 4 and as are held by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to the service. Regulation 5(2) enjoins that 'selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority." Regulation 5(4) enjoins that the "List so prepared shall be reviewed or revised every year." Regulation 5(5) says that if in the process of selection. review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil/ Police Service the Committee shall record

The respondents have been members of the U.P. Civil (Executive) Service/ UP. State Police Service. They were brought on the respective select lists of I.A.S./I.P.S. in 1961 and 1962 and since then they officiated as District Magistrates/Superintendents of Police for a dents who were eligible for promotion came on number of years. The respondent  who were eligible for promotion came on the select list through the procedure for selection and continued on the select list until the list for 1968 was prepared in 1967 when a number of junior officers in both cases, whose names did not figure in the select list of 1967 were added in the select list for 1968. The respondents were reverted to their substantive posts in the respective State Services. The reason sent to the Union Public Service Commission by the Selection Committee for the displacement of each of the respondents was that on an "overall assessment, the records of these officers were not such as to justify their appointment to the respective service at this stage in preference to those selected." The High Court quashed the respective select lists and held (i) that the Selection Committee did not comply with the provision of reg. 5(5) imposing a mandatory duty it to record its reasons for supersession (ii) that seniority should be the dominant factor for making selection for inclusion and suitability were only in the list to be prepared under reg. 5(1) and that merit  and suitability were only of secondary importance; (iii) that the State Government had acted on the wrong assumption that it was competent reversions orders ; (iv) that since the aggrieved officers were competent to pass reversion orders punished in the sense that they, were, dealt with in an arbitrary fashion each of them should have been supplied with the reasons for the supersession to enable them to make written representation to the UPSC.