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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  8208 of 2001

PETITIONER: Union of India

RESPONDENT: Smt. Sadhana Khanna

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.      This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Delhi High Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No.1311 of 2000.

2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.      The facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central  Secretariat Service on 13.7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade Examination  held in October, 1981.  The respondent was allocated to the finance cadre  comprising the Ministry of Finance.

4.      After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of  Assistant, the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of  Section Officer on 24.7.1991.  The respondent continues to work in this post  till date.  

5.      Select List (Seniority quota) for promotion to the Section Officers  Grade for the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993.  The respondent\022s  name has not been included in this select list although the respondent was  qualified to be included in the select list.  Officers junior to the respondent  who have secured lower rank in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981 have  been included in the select list for Section Officers 1991.

6.      The seniority list of Assistants Grade had been issued on 1st October,  1990.  In this list the respondent ranks at S.N.29 whereas other officers of  the same grade at S.Nos.30, 32, 34, 25 and so on who are junior to the  respondent in this seniority list have superseded the respondent and  promoted as Section Officer on the basis of the Select List of 1991.   Promotion to the post of section officers from the grade of Assistant to the  grade of Section Officers (seniority quota) is on non-selection basis, based  only on seniority.

7.      The grievance of the respondent was that her juniors were included in  the select list but her name was not so included.  Hence, she filed an O.A.  before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

8.      In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein  (respondent before the Tribunal) alleged that the respondent was not eligible  for inclusion in the Select List of 1991, since on 1.7.1991 she was short of  the minimum eligibility service requirement of eight years by twelve days.   The respondent joined as Assistant on 13.7.1983 and as such she could not  be placed on the select list.

9.      The Tribunal allowed the O.A. by its order dated 24.9.1999.  In the

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

said O.A. it was hold that the Department of Personnel and Training had  issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1989 soon after the decision of  this Court in R. Prabha Devi and others  vs.  Government of  IndiaThrough Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training,  Administrative Reforms and others 1988(2) SCC 233 stating that where  the junior had completed the eligibility requirement of promotion then their  seniors will also be considered even if they have not completed the  eligibility period.

10.     The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which  was dismissed and hence this appeal.

11.     It may be noted that the respondent was offered appointment vide  letter dated 5.7.1983 which is after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was  to be counted.  Hence, it is the Department which is to blame for sending the  letter offering appointment after 1.7.1983.  In fact, some of the candidates  who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment  prior to 1.7.1983.  Hence it was the Department which is to blame for this.   Moreover, in view of the Office Memorandum of the Department of  Personnel and Training dated 18.3.1988 and 19.7.1989 the respondent was  also to be considered, otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise  namely that the junior will be considered for promotion but the senior will  not.

12.     In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and it is  dismissed.