IMPORTANT POINT
Where the promotion is on the basis of seniority and merit, the selecting authority is not required to record reasons for not selecting a senior and for selecting a junior and where the Rules do not provide for grading or for awarding marks or for recording the reason for over-looking a senior, all governments to provide either by amendment of Rules or by general instructions that the selecting authority should follow the method of grading all the candidates appearing before them.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.- Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. 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 1990-91 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 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.

3. The respondent, Sriram Verma, who is also a member of a Scheduled Caste, 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 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and also because the impugned promotions were in the nature of urgent/temporary promotions, the respondent herein was not promoted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent holding that "a perusal of 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 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 a 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.

4. 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 DPC but no reason has been provided in the proceedings of the DPC 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 there 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 DPC, process of reasoning or application of mind had to be indicated at the time of DPC meeting as to why he is not being promoted or as to why his promotion is being withheld. They did not say that they were withholding promotion on account of adverse entry. This is the minimum requirement of law 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 DPC do not give thei