UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. vs HIRANYALAL DEV & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee's reliance on adverse remarks not communicated to the respondent, which were later set aside, was erroneous. The Court emphasized that these remarks must be treated as non-existent in law, and the Tribunal could not substitute its judgment for that of the Selection Committee. The Court directed the Selection Committee to reconsider the selection list as if the adverse remarks did not exist, ensuring a fair assessment based on the proper categorization of candidates. The concept of supersession was clarified to pertain only to promotions, not selections.