08 November 1996
Supreme Court
Download

ANIL KATIYAR Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
Case number: C.A. No.-004432-004432 / 1996
Diary number: 12633 / 1995
Advocates: M. P. SHORAWALA Vs LALITA KAUSHIK


1

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

PETITIONER: MRS ANIL KATIYAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/11/1996

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      S.C.AGRAWAL. J.;      This appeal  relates to  appointment  on  the  post  of Deputy Government  Advocate in the Central Agency Section in the  Ministry  of  Law  of  the  Government  of  India.  The appellant as  well as  respondent No. 4 are both employed in the Central  Agency Section.  The appellant. joined as Asst. Government Advocate on April 9, 1990, while respondent No. 4 joined the  said post  on October  5, 1989. Respondent No. 4 was thus  senior  to  the  appellant.  The  post  of  Deputy Government Advocate is a selection post on which appointment is  made   from  amongst   Asst.  Government   Advocates.  A Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] headed by a member of the Union  Public Service  Commission was  constituted   for making the  selection. The  appellant as  well as respondent No. 4  were graded  as "very  good" by  the DPC.  and  since respondent No. 4 was senior to the appellant he was selected and on the basis of the said selection he has been appointed as Deputy  Government Advocate.  appellant moved the Central Administrative  Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New   Delhi (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Tribunal’)  by  filing O.A.No. 2538  of  1994  which  has  been  dismissed  by  the impugned judgment dated June 8, 1995.      Before the  Tribunal the  main contention  urged by the appellant was  that the  selection was  made by  DPC on  the basis of  the annual  confidential  Reports  [ACRs]  of  the appellant and  respondent No  4 for the year 1990-91,1991-92 and 1992-93  and that  in the  ACRs for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 the  appellant was  graded as  "outstanding" by  the reporting officer  as well  as the  Reviewing Officer and in the ACR  for the  year 1992-93 she was graded as "very good" by the  reporting officer  as well  as the Reviewing Officer and that  respondent No  4, on the other hand, was graded as "very  good"  by  the  Reporting  officer  as  well  as  the Reviewing Officer in all the three ACRs.  The submission was that since the appellant had been graded as "outstanding" in two out  of three  ACRs by  the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing  Officer, grading the appellant as "very good" by DPC was not justified.  The Tribunal has held that it was not expected  to play  the role of an appellate authority or

2

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

an umpire in the acts and proceedings of the DPC and that it could not go into the recommendations made by the DPC  which had been  accepted by  the Government.  The Tribunal has, at the same time, looked into the ACRs of the appellant and has observed that out of two "outstanding" gradings given to the appellant one  "outstanding"  grading  does  not  flow  from various parameters given and the reports entered therein and that must be the reason why the appellant had been graded as "very good".      Shri Gopal  Subramanium,  the  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal was in  error in  observing that  one "outstanding"  grading does not  flow from various parameters given and the reports entered and in doing so the Tribunal has assumed the role of an appellate  authority over  the Reporting  Officer and the Reviewing officer  a course which, according to the Tribunal itself, could  not be  adopted by it. The submission is that the grading has to be made by  the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer  and since both have agreed in grading the appellant as "outstanding" in the ACRs for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, It was not open to the Tribunal to say that one of the  "outstanding" gradings  does not  flow from  various parameters given  and the report entered therein. As regards the grading  made by  the DPC, the submission of Shri Subram anium is  that there  is no  reason why the appellant should have  been   graded  "very   good"  when  she  had  received "outstanding" remarks  from the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing Officer in the ACRs of two out of three Years.      Having regard  to the  limited scope of judicial review of the  merits of  a selection  made for  appointment   to a service or  a civil post, the Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the  basis that it is not expected to play the role of an appellate authority or an umpire in the acts and proceedings of the  DPC  and that it could not sit in judgment  over the selection made  by the  DPC unless the selection is assailed as being vitiated by mala fides or on the ground of it being arbitrary. it  is not  the case  of the  appellant that  the selection by DPC was vitiated by mala fides.      The question  is whether  the  action  of  the  DPC  in grading the  appellant as  "very good"  can be  held  to  be arbitrary.  Shri  G.L.Sanghi,  the  learned  senior  counsel appearing for  the  Union  Public  Service  Commission,  has placed before  us the confidential procedure followed by the DPCs in  the Union  Public  Service  Commission  for  giving overall gradings,  including that  of   "outstanding", to an officer. Having  regard to  the said  confidential procedure which is followed by the Union Public Service Commission, we are unable  to hold  that the decision of the DPC in grading the appellant as "very good" instead of "outstanding" can be said to  be arbitrary. No ground is, therefore, made out for interference with  the selection  of respondent No. 4 by the DPC on  the basis  of which  he has been appointed as Deputy Government Advocate  but, at the same  time, it must be held that the  Tribunal was  in error  in going into the question whether  the   appellant  had   been   rightly   graded   as "outstanding" in  the ACRs for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92. The observations  of  the  Tribunal  that  out  of  the  two "outstanding"   grading   given   to   the   appellant   one "outstanding" grading  does not flow from various parameters given and the reports entered therein, cannot, therefore, be upheld and are accordingly set aside.      The appeal  is disposed  of accordingly with no with no order as to costs.

3

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