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

PETITIONER: SMT. NUTAN ARVIND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 488        JT 1996 (1)   699  1996 SCALE  (1)656

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This  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.      We had 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 :      "1. Greater emphasis should be laid      on merit as a criterion.      2.   The   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.      3. The  field  of  choice  wherever      possible should  extend to  5 to  6      times  the   number  of   vacancies      expected.

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

    4. 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 each category.      5. 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 :      "The 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:      "We   shall   next   consider   the      allegations in  respect of the DPC.      We 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.      The meetings  were held  on 23rd to      25th  and   30th  March,  1988.  We      notice that  the members signed the

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

    proceedings  on  30.3.1988  itself.      The 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 officer. It had  done that  exercise and  found the appellant not fit for promotion. Thus we do not find any manifest error of law for interference.      It is 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.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.