http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRIRAM VERMA & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/10/1996

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy             Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan      K.S. Bhati  M.K. Singh  and Ms.  Musum, Advs.  for  the appellant Sushil  Kr.  Jain  and  A.D.  Dhamija,  Advs.  For Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :      B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.      Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.      The respondent,  Sriram Verma,  is an officer belonging to the  Rajasthan Administrative  Service. By an order dated March 24,  1991,  thirteen  officers  were    "selected  and appointed in  senior pay-scale.....  subject to  review  and revision for  the year 1980-91 as prescribed in the separate list mentioned in Rule 28(B)(b)" of Rajasthan Administrative Services  Rules,   1954.  Thirteen   officers  selected  and appointed under  the said  order were  mentioned  under  two categories separately. Nine of officers were mentioned under the heading  "On the  basis of seniority and merit" and four officers were  mentioned under  the heading "On the basis of merit". Among  the nine  officers promoted  on the  basis of seniority and  merit, "Sri  Ashok Kumar  Sanvaria [Scheduled Caste] was mentioned at Sr. No. 8.      The respondent,  Sriram verma, who is also a member  of a Scheduled Castes preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order  before   the  Rajasthan   Civil  Services   Appellate Tribunal.  He   complained  that  his  junior,  Ashok  Kumar Sanvaria, has  been  promoted  while  he  himself  has  been overlooked wrongly.  The learned  advocate appearing for the State of  Rajasthan submitted  before the  Tribunal that  an enquiry was  pending against the respondent under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan  Civil Services  [Classifications Control  and Appeal] Rules, 1958 and also because the impugned promotions were in  the  nature  of  urgent/temporary  promotions,  the respondent therein  was not  promoted. The  Tribunal allowed the appeal  preferred by  the  respondent  holding  that  "a perusal or  the written  reply filed  by the Government does not very  clearly indicate  whether the appellant’s case for promotion was considered by the D.P.C. or not"- The Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

observed that  during the  arguments, no doubt, the advocate for the  State did  mention  that  an  enquiry  was  pending against the  respondent  but  that  assertion  was  squarely denied by  the respondent’s  counsel. The  respondent’s case was that  "on the  date of  D.P.C.,  there  was  no  enquiry pending against  him". The  Tribunal observed that it is not clear  whether  the  respondent’s  case  for  promotion  was considered by  the D.P.C.  or not. If an enquiry was pending against him, the Tribunal observed his name should have been kept in sealed cover after considering him and if no enquiry was pending  against him  "then clear recommendations should have  been   recorded  by  the  D.P.C.  in  respect  of  the appellant". The  appeal  was  allowed  accordingly  and  the Government was  directed to  place the respondent’s case for promotion to  the selection  scale against the vacancies for the year  1990-91 before  the DPC.  The DPC  was directed to record its clear recommendations about the respondent.      The order  of  the  tribunal  was  challenged  by  the. Government of  Rajasthan before  the High  Court.  The  High Court says  that it sent for the record relating. to regular selection by  D.P.C. and  then says: "We have got the record and after  going through  the same,  find that  the name  of respondent No.1  was there  before the  D.P.C. but no reason has been provided in the proceedings of the D.P.C. as to why the respondent  was not  considered fit  for promotion". The High Court  then referred  to the  submission of the counsel for the  State that  where was  an adverse entry against the respondent.  The  High  Court  saw  the  entry  but  without expressing any  opinion whether it is really adverse or not, observed: "We  may say  that when his name was considered by the D.P.C.,  process of reasoning or application of mind had to be  indicated at  the time D.P.C. meeting as to why he is not being promoted or as his promotion is being withheld. They did  not say  that they  were withholding  promotion on account of  adverse entry. This is the minimum requirment. A which is  being enunciated  by courts  from time to time and this law  is being  observed in breach. The High Court added further:      "Even  before   us,   the   learned      counsel for  the  State  says  that      D.P.C. do  not give  their  reasons      when   somebody   is   ignored   or      withheld from  promotion.  This  is      not  the   correct  state  of  law.      D.P.C.  is  not  to  write  a  long      judgment  but  whatever  occurs  in      their mind  to withhold  promotion,      that  must   be  indicated  in  the      proceedings of  the D.P.C., so that      case the matter challenged before a      Court of  law, the  Court  can  see      what appealed to the mind of D.P.C.      for not giving promotion.      Copy of  this order  may be sent to      the   Chief    Secretary   to   the      Government of  Rajasthan so that he      may   be   able   to   advise   all      authorities  and  Departments  keep      this  in   view  while  sitting  in      D.P.C."      The learned  counsel for  the appellant-State submitted that it  is not obligatory upon the D.P.C. to record reasons for not  selecting an  officer and/or for selecting a junior while not  selecting  the  senior.  Counsel  submitted  that unless the  rules expressly  so provide,  no such obligation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

can be  deduced from  the Rajasthan  Administrative Services Rules,  1954.  Counsel  submitted  that  the  principles  of natural justice  have no  application  to  such  selections. Learned counsel  relied upon  the decision  of this Court in Sarat Kumar  Das  v.    Vishwajit  Patnaik  [1995  Suppl.(1) S.C.C.434] and  the several  decisions referred  to therein. Counsel  for  the  respondent,  however  disputed  the  said propositions and submitted that when a senior is ignored and Junior is  selected, it  is obligatory  upon the  D.P.C.  to record  reasons  therefor.  This  requirement,  the  learned counsel submitted,  has to be inferred because the selection is liable  to be  challenged in  a court  of law  and unless there is  something on  record to  indicate the  reasons for ignoring a  senior or for selecting a junior, the Court will not be  in a  position to  judge the  fairness of selection. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in State Bank of  India v.  Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 S.C.1328], Union of India  v. E.G.Nambudiri  [1991 (3)  SCC 38]  and Union of India v. N.P.Dhamania  [1995 Suppl.(1) SCC 1].      Before dealing with the submissions, it is necessary to record a  statement made  by the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant-State. He  stated that so far as the respondent is concerned, no grievance survives on his part inasmuch as the order of  the Tribunal  [as confirmed by the High Court] has been implemented  and the respondent has been given what was due to  him. The  counsel  stated  that  the  State  is  not interested in  disturbing  what  is  already  given  to  the respondent but  that  they  only  want  a  decision  on  the proposition enunciated  by  the  High  Court  that  where  a seniors   overlooked and a junior is selected, the selecting authority must  indicate the  reason for doing so. The above statement is recorded.      It must  be noticed  in the  first  instance  that  the promotion to  the selection  scale is  on a twin basis viz., seniority-cum-merit as  well  as  merit.  The  case  of  the respondent and  his Junior,  Sri Sanvaria, was considered on the basis  of seniority-cum-merit.  the selection  has  been made by  the Departmental  Promotion  Committee  constituted according to  rules. The  question is  whether the D.P.C. is under an obligation to record reasons far selecting a junior while ignoring  a senior.  The High  Court has observed that even though the selecting authority is not required to write a long  order giving  reasons for not selecting a senior and for selecting his junior, the proceedings of the D.P.C. must indicate in  some manner  as to why a senior was ignored and his junior  was selected.  The question  is whether the High Court is right in saying so?      With a view to clear the ground, we may mention that we are not  dealing with a case of initial  appointment. We are also not  dealing with a case where promotion is exclusively on the  basis of  merit. We  are concerned with a case where promotion is  on the  basis of  seniority  and  merit  i.e., seniority-cum-merit. It  is in such a case that the question is arising  whether the  selecting authority  is required to record reasons  for not selecting a senior and for selecting a Junior.  In R.S.Dass  v.Union of India [1986 Suppl. S.C.C. 617]  the     Bench   comprising  Sabyasachi   Mukharji  and K.N.Singh, JJ.  considered the amended Regulations 54 and 55 of  the   Indian  Administrative   Service  (Appointment  by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Prior to its amendment in 1977 the  Regulation  required  that  where  it  is  proposed  to supersede any  member of  the State  Service "the  committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". After the  amendment, the  Regulation requires the Selection Committee to  classify eligible  officers as  ’outstanding’,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

’very gaud’,  ’good’ or  ’unfit’, as  the case may be, on an over-all  consideration  and  assessment  of  their  service record. After  such categorisation,  the  Committee  has  to arrange  the  names  of  officers  in  the  select  list  in accordance with  the procedure  laid down  in Regulation 55. The Bench  opined that  the amended  Regulation gave primacy and that in such a case it may happen that a junior officer, if categorised  as outstanding’ or ’very good’ may supersede his seniors.  The Bench rejected the argument that in such a situation, it is necessary to record reasons for superseding a senior.  The  following  observations  of  the  Bench  are relevant.      "Learned counsel urged that reasons      if recorded  ensure objectively and      impartiality.  In  the  absence  of      reasons the  Committee may  act  in      arbitrary   manner   to   supersede      senior   officers    which    would      violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the      Constitution. We  find no  merit in      the submission.  Article 16 ensures      equality  in  matters  relating  to      appointment  and  promotion  to  an      office or  post under the State. It      enjoins  State   not  to   practise      discrimination in  matters relating      to  appointment  and  promotion.  A      member of  the State  Civil Service      eligible    for    selection    for      promotion to  the I.A.S.  has right      to be  considered along with others      for  selection  for  promotion.  If      eligible officers are considered on      merit, in  an objective  manner  no      Government servant  has  any  legal      right to  insist for  promotion nor      any such  right is protected by the      Arts. 14 or 16 or the Constitution.      Article 16  does  not  insist  that      reasons should  be recorded for the      non-selection of  member of a State      Service.      The Bench  also rejected  the argument  that since  the Regulations   do   not   lay   down   any   guidelines   for categorisation   of   the   officers   as   aforesaid,   the categorisation is  bound to be arbitrary. It held that since the categorisation  is made  objectively on the basis of the service record  of the  officers, there  is no  room for any arbitrariness. This  decision was  followed by another Bench (M.P. Thakkar  and N.D.  Ojha, JJ.)  in Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and others [1988 (2) S.C.C. 242 while considering  identical provisions  in I.P.S  promotion regulations. The  Bench reiterated  that it is not necessary to record  the reasons  for not  selecting a  person who  is within the field of eligibility.      National institute  of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr.  K.Kalyana Raman  and Others  [1992 Suppl. (2) S.C.C. 481]  was   case  concerning  appointment  to  the  post  of professor in  the institute. It was held that in the absence of any  requirement in  the Rules or Regulation obliging the selection Committee  to record  reasons, no such requirement can be  inferred. It  was held,  following R.S.  Dass,  that principles of  natural justice  are not  attracted  to  such situation and  that recording  the reasons was not necessary requirement. In  Major General I.P.S Dewan v. Union of India

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

and Others  [1995 (3)  S.C.C. 383], this Bench took the view that  unless   the   Rules   so   require,   the   Selection Committee/Selection Board  is not  obliged to record reasons why they  are not selecting a particular person, as the case may be.  In Sarat  Kumar Dash and Others v. Biswajit Patnaik and Others  [1995 Suppl.  (1) S.C.C.  434] a  Bench of  this Court (K.  Ramaswamy and  N.Venkatachala, JJ.)  considered a case where  the promotion  was on  the basis  of  merit-cum- suitability.  The  Public  Service  Commission  adopted  the method of  grading or  categorisation, as  it may be called, and then made the selection. It was cantended that since the reasons  were   not  recorded   by  the   P.S.C.   for   the recommendations made  by it,  the selection  was  bad.  This contention   was    rejected   following    the    decisions aforementioned.      Now coming to the Rules applicable herein, the position is this:  Clauses (a)  and (b) af sub-rule (11) of Rule 28-B of the  Rajasthan Administrative  Service Rules,  1954  read thus:      "(11)(a)   The    Committee   shall      consider   the    cases   of    all      seniormost persons who are eligible      and qualified  for promotion to the      class  of   posts  concerned  under      these rules  and  shall  prepare  a      list  containing   names   of   the      persons found suitable on the basis      of  seniority-cum-merit  and/or  on      the basis of merit, as the case may      be,  as   per  the   criteria   for      promotion laid down in these rules,      equal to  the number  of  vacancies      determined under  rule relating  to      "Determination  of   vacancies"  of      these rules.  The list  so prepared      on the basis of seniority-cum-merit      and/or on  the basis  of merit,  as      the case  may be, shall be arranged      in the  order of  seniority on  the      category  of   pasts   from   which      selection is made.      (b)  The   Committee   shall   also      prepare  a  separate  list  on  the      basis of seniority-cum-merit and/or      on the  basis of merit, as the case      may be,  as per  the  criteria  far      promotion laid  down in  the rules,      containing names  of persons  equal      to the  number of  persons selected      in  the  list  prepared  under  (a)      above   to    fill   temporary   or      permanent vacancies which may occur      subsequently. The  list so prepared      on the basis of seniority-cum-merit      and/or on  the basis of merit shall      be  arranged   in  the   order   of      seniority in, the cotegory of posts      from which  selection shall be made      Such a  list shall  be reviewed and      revised   by    the    Departmental      promotion Committee  that meets  in      the subsequent  year and  that such      list shall remain in force till the      end of  the last  day or  the  next      year  or   till  the   Departmental

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    Promotion     Committee      meets?      whichever is earlier."      The clauses  aforesaid neither  provide for grading nor do they  require the  recording of reasons for superseding a senior. So  far as  the promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit is  concerned, lt  only says  that  the  Committee shall consider the names of all senior and qualified persons "and shall  prepare a  list containing  names of the persons found suitable  on the  basis Of seniority-cum-merit." After preparation, such  list, the officers included therein shall be arranged  in the order of inter se seniority obtaining in the feeder  post. In such a situation and when the promotion is made  by the Departmental Promotion Committees we find it difficult to  say either  that ordinarily  the D.F.C. should record reasons for not selecting a senior (and selecting his junior) or  that at  least the  record should  indicate some reason therefor.  It is  one thing to say that such a course is fair and desirable but lt is altogether a different thing to say  that such a course is obligatory or necessary in all cases for in the latter event the Selections made are liable to be set aside for not complying with the said requirement. The High  Court has  pointed out  that such  selections  are likely to  the challenged in  Court of law and if no reason, are recorded  - or  at least the record indicates the reason for superseding a senior and selecting his junior, the Court would not  be  in  a  position  to  consider  the  grievance effectively and  satisfactorily. This argument brings to our mind the  decision in  Bhagat Raja  v. Union  of India Other [A.I.R 1967  S.C. 1606  (C.B] but  that was  case where  the order questioned  before  the  Court  was  a  quasi-judicial order. It  is  equally  true  that  even  in  administrative matters this  Court has been, insisting upon the duty to Act fairly which may sometimes require an apportunity of hearing But having  regard to  the nature  of function  of selection and taking  into consideration  the fact that the only right of the  government servant  is a  right to be considered and not a right to promotion  we do not think it possible to infer  the   requirement  of   recording  reasons   in   all situations. At  the same  time, we  think that  it is always desirable that  procedure adopted  selecting body  should be fair and  such as to lend credence to the process; it should be such as to inspire confidence in all concerned within the practicable limits.  From this  point of view, it would be a wholesome step  for the  Government of  Rajasthan  for  that matter, all  governments to  provide either  by amendment of Rules or  by general  instructions that  in the Promotion on the  basis   of  merit   or   merit-cum-seniority/merit-cum- suitablity, the selecting authority should follow the method of grading  all the  candidates appearing  before them. This requirement we  are suggesting  in cases  where the Rules do not provide  for  grading  or  for  awarding  marks  or  for recording  of  reason  for  over-looking  a  senior;  where, however, the  Rules already provide for awarding of marks or any other  appropriate method,  our suggestion  may  not  be applicable. It  must also be understood clearly that ours is a  suggestion  to  avoid  complaints  of  arbitrariness  and primarily with  a view  to make  the process  credible.  The governments shall  keep this  underlying object  in mind and cause   appropriate    amendments   or   issue   appropriate instructions.    It     is    obvious    that    any    such amendments/instructions   shall    have   only   prospective operation.      For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of  the High Court that of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal  impugned herein  are set  aside. But  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

recorded hereinabove,  this order  shall in no manner affect the  first  respondent,  or  for  that  matter,  the  second respondent. There shall be no order to costs.      Copies of  this order  shall be  sent to  all the Chief Secretaries of  Stato Governments  and Union  Territories as well  as   to  the  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs, Government of India.