http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: S.L. SONI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  665            1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 156  1995 SCALE  (3)603

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  arises against the order of the M.P. Admn. Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in Transferred Application No.1794/88 dated 5.3.1993.  The only question in this appeal is whether the claim  for promotion as Assistant Forest Conservator was considered in  accordance with Rules. We have called for and perused the  record. A High Level Committee, consisting of a Member  of   the  Public  Service  Commission  as  Chairman, Secretary to the Government, Forest Department and Principal Chief Conservator  of Forests as members, was constituted to consider the claims of all eligible persons for promotion as Assistant/conservator of Forest. The criteria adopted by the Committee was  in accordance  with the  M.P. Forest  Service (Recruitment) Rules,  1977, (for  short, ’the  Rules’).  The zone  of   consideration  was   five  times  the  number  of vacancies. Thereby  there was  wide chances  for many  to be considered. Only  officers with  a minimum  of  8  years  of service  and   confirmed  in   the  cadre   of  Ranger  were considered. The  selection was  based  on  merits  with  due regard to  seniority. The merit was assessed on the basis of recorded annual confidential reports of the officers for the previous five  years  to  the  year  of  consideration.  The yardstick of  merit adopted  was that  average assessment of last five  years C.Rs.  should be  above  "good".  Integrity should be  beyond doubt. In the case of officer against whom departmental enquiry  was in  progress, assessment  was made without prejudice  to the  result of  the said enquiry which was placed  in  a  sealed  cover  to  be  opened  after  the departmental enquiry proceedings are completed.      Based thereon, the claims were considered and initially the appellant  was not  found  fit  for  promotion  and  was rejected. The  Tribunal, after  examination of  the  matter, gave the following direction:      "We conclude  that the  D.P.C. has erred

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

    in  taking   into   consideration,   the      uncommunicated adverse  remarks for  the      period   ending    March,   1978   while      considering the  applicant’s fitness for      promotion  to   the   post   of   Asstt.      Conservator of  Forests. We  accordingly      direct   that    a   fresh   D.P.C.   be      constituted for  evaluating  applicant’s      claim for  promotion with  retrospective      effect. The  D.P.C. shall  not take into      consideration the  adverse  remarks  for      the yer  ending March,  1978, otherwise,      it may  follow  the  same  criteria  for      adjudging  applicant’s  suitability  for      promotion as  has been  followed by  the      D.P.C. held  in 1982.  The applicant, if      found    fit,     will    be    entitled      retrospective  notional   promotion  and      seniority from the date his juniors were      promoted. For  the reasons  recovered in      para 3 above, the applicant will not be,      however, entitled  to any  consequential      cash benefits."      Pursuant thereto,  excluding the  adverse comments made for  the   year  ending  with  March,  1978,  the  Committee reconsidered the matter and found the appellant not eligible for promotion. Though Sri Pandey sought to canvass the claim on merits, we cannot evaluate ourselves the relative merits. A high  level committee objectively considered the claim and found the  appellant was not fit for promotion on merits. We are satisfied  about this  on perusal  of the proceedings of the Committee.      In view  of the  above, we  think that it is not a case warranting  our  interference.  The  appeal  is  accordingly dismissed. No costs.