Arvind Vs. Union of India & Anr  INSC 65 (15 January 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCC (2) 488 JT 1996 (1) 699 1996 SCALE (1)656
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the order dated December 22, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1796 of 1989.
issued notice to the respondents to show to this Court whether the
consideration for promotion was on merit and ability or seniority-cum-merit and
what was the principle that was fo11owed in grading the Officers by the D.P.C.
Pursuant to the said notice, learned counsel for the union of India has brought
to our notice the instructions issued by the Gavernment of India and was in
vogue prior to May 12, 1988. The Administrative lnstructions contained in
Memorandum of the Government dated 17th May, 1957 which was approved by this
Court in Union of India etc. vs. Majji Jangamayya etc. [(1977) 2 SCR 28]. This
Court had accepted the criteria laid down in those instructions which were as under
Greater emphasis should be laid on merit as a criterion.
Departmental Promotion Committee should first decided the field of choice,
namely, the number of eligible officers awaiting promotion who should be
considered for inclusion in the selection list. An officer of outstanding merit
may be included in the list even if he is outside the normal field of choice.
field of choice wherever possible should extend to 5 to 6 times the number of vacancies expected.
From among such officers those who are considered unfit for promotion should be
excluded and the remaining should be classified as 'outstanding' 'very good'
and 'good' on the basis of merit as determined by their respective records of
service The selection list should then be prepared by placing the names of the
order of these three tategories without disturbing the sefiority inter U within
Promotions should strictly be iade from such selection list in the order in
which the names are finally arranged. The selection list should be periodically
reviewed recoving from the list names of persons who have been promoted, and
including fresh names." On consideration of the above instructions, this
Court had held thus :
vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the
old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the
parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade It will be
according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis
and, therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the
question is of filing the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules.
We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the
amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new
rules." It is thus the settled law that prior to May 1988 grading used to
be done as per Board's instructions and, therefore, the field of choice was
done strictly on the basis of the seniority. Grading is now being done
according to the confidential reports on the basis of principle of
outstanding', 'very good', 'good' etc. etc. It is srated by the Tribunal in
paragraph 14 at page 13 that it had perused the DPC proceedings placed before
it and observed thus:
shall next consider the allegations in respect of the DPC.
have seen the records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents which
includes the note to the DPC and the proceedings of the DPC. The DPC met under
the Chairmanship of Shri Jagdish Rajan, Member UPSC and included the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, the Chairman, CBDT and Member CBDT.
meetings were held on 23rd to 25th and 30th March, 1988. We notice that the members signed
the proceedings on 30.3.1988 itself.
records of 141 persons were considered and a panel of 65 persons was prepared
which includes 4 SC candidates. The name of the applicant does not find a place
in the panel. No officer has been assessed as 'outstanding'. The committee had
assessed the officers as either 'Very good' or 'good'. In some cases, the
assessment was placed in a sealed cover. The applicant was assessed as 'Good'.
None included in the panel had the rating 'Good'." The DPC which is a
high-level committee, considered the merits of the respective candidates and
the appellant, though considered, was not promoted. It is contended by learned
counsel for the appellant that one K.S. Rao was the officer at the relevant
time to review the performance of the appellant whereas in fact one Menon had
reviewed it. The latter was not competent to review the performance of the
appellant and to write the confidentials. We are afraid we cannot go into that
question. It is for the DPC to consider at the time when the assessments of the
respective candidates is made. 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. The DPC would come to its own conclusion on the
basis of review by an officer and whether he is or is not competent to write
the confidentials is for them to decide and call for report from the proper
done that exercise and found the appellant not fit for promotion. Thus we do
not find any manifest error of law for interference.
brought to our notice by the learned counsel that since the appellant was
superseded for the subsequent period also, she could not file any proceedings
in the Tribunal due to the pendency of this matter. If she is aggrieved against
such a supersession, this order does not preclude her to agitate her rights
according to law.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.