http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHABUNGBAM IBOHAL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Civil Appeal No. 1149 of 1987

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/02/1995

BENCH: (KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHAI & B.L HANSARIA, JJ.)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: HANSARIA, J.: 1.The  appellant has a grievance that is  fundamental  right under Article 16 has been infringed by not promoting him  in the Indian Administrative Service in time as required by the concerned   provisions  governing  the  promotion  to   that Service.   This  grievance  has  taken  an  aggravated  form because of promotion of his juniors. 2.   The  appellant approached Gauhati High Court  with  the aforesaid grievance which gave rise to Civil Rule No.256  of 1978.  the  writ petition stood transferred to  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal,  Gauhati  Bench  by  operation  of section  29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.   The Tribunal,  instead  of  going  through  the  merits  of  the grievance, accepted the preliminary objection raised by  the State  Government about the delay in filing the  application and  dismissed the same on that ground.   Feeling  aggrieved this appeal has been preferred. 3.   To do complete justice between the parties, we  thought it  would be appropriate to examine the merits of  the  case instead of non-suiting the appellant on the ground of delay. With  this  point  in view, the appeal  was  once  heard  on 20.10.94, when need for perusal of the service record of the appellant  from  1970  till  1982  and  proceedings  of  the Selection  Committee  from 1974 till 1980 was  felt.   These records  were  produced before us on 8th December,  1994  on which date hearing was closed. 4.   The  need  for perusal of the aforesaid  documents  was felt  because the case of the respondent-State (Manipur)  is that  name of the appellant had been duly forwarded  to  the Selection  Committee which had considered his case  also  in its meetings which held in 1974, 1976, 1977 and 19801; 165 but  the  appellant  was not found  fit  and  the  Selection Committee   did  not  recommend  his  name  for   promotion. Ultimately, the name of the appellant came to be recommended in 1981 and he was subsequently promoted. 5.   A  perusal of the aforesaid records does show that  the appellant’s  name had been considered in 1974,  1976,  1977, 1980 by the Selection Committee.  It is to be further  found that in 1974 the non-recommendation was not only due to non-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

issuance  of integrity certificate by the concerned  officer of  the State which, it may be stated, was because  of  some disciplinary.  proceeding  pending  against  the   appellant relating  to  his  integrity which  proceeding  came  to  be dropped afterwards, but also because the Selection Committee took note of adverse remarks in the ACRs o the appellant and observed  that his speed in working output was slow  and  be was censured in 1969-70. 6.   These  factors which were taken note by  the  Selection Committee arc undoubtedly relevant.  We would, however,  ob- serve that the adverse remarks related to the allegation  of embezzlement,  which  must be taken to have been  wiped  out because  of  the  dropping of  the  disciplinary  proceeding subsequently.    Other  factors  noted  by   the   Selection Committee receive support from what finds place in the  ACRs of the appellant.  Insofar as censure is concerned, we  have seen the order of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur dated  30th  July, 1969, which the appellant  was  censured. This  had  come  to happen because of-  the  issuance  of  a certificate  by  the appellant in favour of one  Ibo  Pishak Singh stating that his total income was Rs.600/- per  annum. On  the basis of this certificate,  Post-Matric  Scholarship meant  for low income group students came to be, awarded  to Ibo  Pishak Singh.  It, however, appears from what has  been in the Chief Secretary’s order that the certificate had been issued  carelessly  without proper verification; and  so,  a lenient  view was taken as there was no mala fide  intention and   the   appellant  came  to  be  censured.    The   non- recommendation  of the appellant in 1974 was thus  for  good and cogent reasons. 7.   Insofar as 1976 consideration is concerned, the  reason for  supersession have been recorded thus: "His  performance has been found to be only fair, was censured a few year ago. needs  to  acquire more experience and show  better  results before he can be promoted." These are cogent masons for  not recommending the appellant in that year. 8.   The  minutes  of the meeting concerning the  year  1977 shows  that the Selection Committee recommended  two  names, one of which was of Shri RK Modhusana Singh who belonged  to general  category  and another Shri LS Thangjon  who  was  a Scheduled  Tribe.   RK Modhusana Singh was  the  junior-most incumbent   in  the  list  of  eligible   candidates.    His assessment was, however, recorded as "very good" whereas qua the appellant it had been stated "unfit".  As the  appellant was being superseeded by one of his juniors, we do not think if  it was enough on the part of the Selection Committee  to have merely stated "’unfit"’, and then to recommend the name of one of his juniors.  No for unfitness is reflected in the proceedings,  as against what earlier  Selection  Committees had done to which reference has already been made. 166 9.   Despite the above, we do not propose to interfere  with this  supersession  of the appellant because we  have  found that  Madhosana  Singh  was rated  ’very  good",  whereas  a perusal of the ACRs of the appellant shows that he cannot be rated  as  "very  good", indeed, it would  be  difficult  to regard him even as "good".  So, no injustice has really been caused to the appellant in the recommendation of one of  his juniors  for  promotion.  As to Thangjon, it may  be  stated that  he  was  the only Scheduled  Tribe  candidate  amongst eligible  persons.   This  apart, his  assessment  has  been recorded as "good".  This shows that there was no unfairness or arbitrariness in the proceeding of the Selection  Commit- tee of that year. 10.The last year with which we are concerned is 1980,and  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

that  year  what happened was the  Selection  Committee  had recommended four names of State Civil Services Officers  and these  were  of; (1) Sh. S. Sarat Singh; (2)  Shri  A  Sarat Chander  Singh; (3) RK Modhusana; and (4) Shri  RK  Birendra Singh.   The assessment of the first three  recommendees  as noted in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, is that all were "very good", and it is because of this that  though they were last three in the list of eligible candidates they were  preferred over their seniors.  The fourth,  namely  RK Singh  is the senior most among the eligible candidates  and it  is because of this that of the remaining five  his  name was  recommended.   The appellant was immediately  below  RK Birendra  Singh  in the list o eligible candidates  and  had been  rated as "good", as was RK Birendra Singh; but as  the Selection Committee could have recommended only four  names, his name could not be recommended. 11.The aforesaid shows that no illegality had been committed by  the Selection Committee or injustice had been caused  in not  recommending the name of the petitioner prior  to  1981 for  his  promotion to Indian Administrative  Service.   We, therefore,do  not read any infraction of Article 16  in  the appellant    having   been   promoted   pursuant   to    the recommendation made in 1981 only.  So, the appeal has to  be dismissed, which we hereby do.  No costs. 167