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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5543 of 2007

PETITIONER: Devisingh Meena

RESPONDENT: Union of India

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5543 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10899 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1.      Leave granted.  

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division  Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition  filed by the appellant. His claim relates to the post of Senior  Administrative Grade. He filed OA 245 of 2001 before the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short  the ’Tribunal’).  Before that he had moved OA 8639 of 1997  making the grievance that he was not granted the post of Chief  Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade from 1995.   His stand was that the Minister of Railways had approved his  promotion in the said grade, but the same was not given effect  to by the respondents.  OA was decided on merits by order  dated 15.1.1999. While dismissing the OA, Tribunal had  observed that the applicant was not entitled for promotion to  the post of Chief Commercial Manager in the grade w.e.f.  1.1.1995. The appellant had preferred Special Civil Application  No.10899 of 2000 before the Gujarat High Court and while  dismissing the same, learned Single Judge had directed the  respondents to decide the pending representation of the  applicant for his promotion in the light of existing rules and  regulations.         

3.      Subsequently, Misc. application no.132 of 2001 was  moved by the appellant in the said Special Civil Application  which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 7.3.2001 in  view of the appellant making a statement that he would  proceed before the appropriate forum in respect of the  challenge.  A speaking order was passed by the competent  authority on the representation. Therefore, OA No.245 of  2001 was filed.  Subsequently, prayer in the OA was for  setting aside the order dated 2.2.2001 passed by the  Member, Railway Board and for direction to the Railways  authorities to consider his case for promotion w.e.f. 1996.                4.      It is to be noted that the representation was rejected on  the ground that though the Minister had initially approved  his promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade,  subsequently, by order dated 26.4.1997 he concurred with  non-inclusion of his name in the panel. He was not

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

considered for promotion. Before the Tribunal stand of the  respondent was that merely because the Minister had earlier  recommended for inclusion of appellant’s name in the Senior  Administrative Grade at an earlier stage, that did not confer  any right to get promotion particularly when the same  Minister had subsequently approved the exclusion of his  name.         

5.      The stand of the appellant in support of the appeal is  that once the Minister had approved inclusion of his name,  there was no question of his subsequently disapproving the  inclusion merely because it was brought to his notice that  inclusion of his name was impermissible.  

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the  Departmental Promotion Committee ((in short ’DPC’) did not  recommend appellant’s name. On his representation, the  Minister directed his empanelment. Subsequently, when  materials were placed before the Minister, he directed that  there was no scope for empanelment of appellant.      

7.      At this juncture it is necessary to note that there was no  challenge to the Minister’s subsequent order. From the  records it is revealed that in the order of 1996, when DPC  had referred the panel to the Minister for his approval, the  name of the appellant was not included in the list. The  Minister while approving the panel included the name of the  appellant and then approved the panel. Subsequently, the  Member, Special Railway Board, who was one of the  members of the DPC, advised the Secretary, Railway Board,  to place the matter before DPC for re-consideration in view of  the observations made by the Minister.          

8.      Thereafter, DPC put up a detailed note indicating the  reasons as to why the name of the appellant can not be  included for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade. The   Minister accepted the reasons given by the DPC for non- inclusion and further approved the panel which did not  figure appellant’s name.       

9.      It is not in dispute as per applicable provisions, the  promotions have been granted.  Appellant’s name was not  recommended by the DPC and, therefore, he could not have  been appointed.   

10.     Appellant’s stand is that once the Minister had directed  inclusion of his name, there was no scope for making a  departure from the view.  This stand is clearly unsustainable.   As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the  respondent, at the first stage though the Minister had  directed inclusion of appellant’s name, subsequently when  relevant material was placed before him, he took a view  different from what he had taken earlier.  As noted above,  there was no challenge to the Minister’s order disapproving  the case of the appellant.            11.     That being so, there is no scope for interference with the  orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court.  The  appeal is without merit and is dismissed. There will be no  order as to costs.