1. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee — Promotion to senior grades — Compliance with statutory rules under Article 309 — Challenge to committee composition. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 975
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B.Shah : R.P.Sethi
Sunder Lal
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 1667 of 1997
Date of Decision : 9/7/99
Co-option of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member in a Departmental Promotion Committee is only permissible if no statutory member belongs to those categories. If a statutory member is an SC/ST officer, adding an additional co-opted member is unjustified and contrary to statutory rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - Co-option of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) members - If the statutory composition of the DPC already includes an officer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the co-option of an additional member for the same purpose is not justified and would be contrary to the statutory rules. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an order of a Tribunal which held that the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to certain grades was against statutory rules. The committee was constituted with four members, including a co-opted member from a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, despite the fact that one of the statutory members already belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Findings of Court:
The finding of the Tribunal is not illegal or erroneous. Statutory rules provide for a three-member committee. Administrative guidelines allow for the co-option of an SC/ST member only if none of the officers included in the committee as per the recruitment rules belong to such categories. Since a statutory member already belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the addition of a fourth member was not justified. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the addition of a fourth co-opted member belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe to a Departmental Promotion Committee was justified when a statutory member of the committee already belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Ratio Decidendi: Co-option of an SC/ST member in a Departmental Promotion Committee is a conditional provision applicable only when the statutory composition lacks such representation. If the statutory requirements are already met by the presence of an SC/ST officer, adding another member exceeds the statutory mandate and is not justified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Necessity of co-opting SC/ST member — Presence of SC officer among statutory members — Validity of adding a fourth member to the committee. (Para 6 )
3. Statutory rules mandate a three-member committee — Co-option of SC/ST member required only if no statutory member belongs to those categories. (Para 7 )
4. Co-option of an SC/ST member in a Departmental Promotion Committee is unjustified if the statutory composition already includes an officer from a Scheduled Caste. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Tribunal order upheld. (Para 8 )
6. When is it necessary to co-opt an SC/ST member into a Departmental Promotion Committee?
Co-option of a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is permitted if none of the officers included in the committee as per the recruitment rules belong to those categories. (Para 4 , 7 )
7. Does the presence of an SC/ST officer among the statutory members of a DPC preclude the need for a co-opted member?
Yes, if a statutory member of the committee already belongs to a Scheduled Caste, the addition of a further co-opted SC/ST member is not justified. (Para 7 )
8. Can an administrative office memorandum justify expanding the statutory composition of a Departmental Promotion Committee?
An office memorandum allowing co-option of SC/ST members does not justify adding members beyond the statutory composition if the representation requirement is already met by the existing statutory members. (Para 4 , 7 )
(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 17-9-1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2084 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the grades of Joint Secretary and Legislative Counsel (Hindi Branch) was against the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
(3) AS per the State statutory rules, constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee should consist of:
(i)
Chairman/Member, UPSC
Chairman
(ii)
Secretary, Legislative Department, M/o
Member
Law & Justice
(iii)
Additional Secretary, Official Languages
Member
Wing, Legislative Department, M/o Law
& Justice
(4) OFFICE memorandum dated 10-4-1989 issued by the Government of India while issuing guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees provides as under:
"2.7. In Group A and Group B services/posts if none of the officers included in DPC as per the composition given in the recruitment rules is an SC or ST officer, it would be in order to co-opt a member belonging to the SC or ST if available within the ministry/department. If no such officer is available within the ministry/department, he may be taken from another ministry/department."
(5) DESPITE this, as per the office order dated 9-8-1995, the Departmental Promotion Committee for various Group A and B posts in the Official Languages Wing, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs was constituted as follows: (A) For promotion to the grades of Joint Secretary and Legislative Counsel (Hindi Branch):
(a)
Chairman/Member, Union Public Service
Chairman
Commission
(b)
Secretary, Legislative Department
Member
(c)
Additional Secretary, Legislative Department
Member
(d)
An officer of the appropriate level belonging
Member
to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe to be
co-opted from any other ministry/department
(6) BEFORE the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the addition of the 4th member was not necessary in view of the fact that the Secretary, Legislative Department himself was belonging to a Scheduled Caste and there was no necessity of co-opting for the 4th member.
(7) IN our view, the finding given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous. Statutory rule for the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee provides that the Committee shall consist of three named members, i.e. (i) Chairman/Member, UPSC Chairman; (ii) Secretary, Legislative Department Member; and (iii) Additional Secretary, Legislative Department Member. The office memorandum dated 10-4-1989 also specifically provides that if none of the officers included in DPC as per the composition given in the recruitment rules is an SC or ST officer, it would be in order to co-opt a member belonging to the SC or ST, if available within the ministry/department. In view of the admitted fact that the Secretary, Legislative Department himself was belonging to a Scheduled Caste, addition of the fourth member in the Committee was not justified.
(8) THEREFORE, in our view, the order passed by the Tribunal is just and in accordance with the statutory rules. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
