2011 (7) Supreme 312
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
B.S. Darjee & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 2006
Decided on : 20-10-2011
Facts of the case:
A constable in CISF was denied promotion to Lance Naik for continuously three years on account of punishment every year. Thus he continued to lose seniority to his juniors who were promoted.
Later on rationalization of the cadres the posts of Lance Naik was merged with that of constables. Such constables were entitled to be promoted to Head Constable.
However because of the respondent continuously losing his seniority for three years, he was not considered for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
Being eligible and falling in the zone of consideration are not one and the same.
JUDGMENT
A. K. Patnaik, J. —
This is an appeal against the order dated 26.08.2004 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 7929 of 2000 (for short ‘the impugned order’).
2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1 was working as Constable (General Duty) under the Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘the CISF’). In 1993, he was considered for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik and was empanelled for such promotion. Before he was appointed as Lance Naik, however, he was awarded the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year and as per circulars of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, his empanelment for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik had to be cancelled on account of the punishment. In 1994, respondent no.1 was again considered for promotion and he was found fit, but before his actual promotion he was awarded punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year and his promotion was again cancelled. In 1995, he was again considered and empanelled for promotion to the post of Lance Naik, but before he could be appointed, he was awarded the punishment of censure and his empanelment for promotion was cancelled. In 1996-1997, he was again considered for promotion but he was not found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘the DPC’).
3. The rank of Lance Naik in CISF was rationalized and Lance Naiks also became Constables with effect from 10.10.1997, but in the seniority list, Constables who were junior to respondent no.1 in service but had been promoted as Lance Naiks were placed above the respondent no.1 as he had not been promoted to the rank of Lance Naik. From 1998 onwards, Constables who had completed ten years of service in the rank of Constables including the service rendered by them in the rank of Lance Naik prior to 10.10.1997 were eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constables. Under the relevant circulars, however, such Constables were to be considered only if they came into the zone of consideration as per the seniority list and as the respondent No.1 did not come into the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, he was not considered for such promotion.
4. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No. 7929 of 2000 before the High Court and contended that though as a Constable he had put in ten years of service and was eligible for consideration for promotion, he has not been considered for promotion since 1998. By the impugned order, the High Court held that the respondent no.1 was considered by the DPC for promotion in the year 1997 and was not found fit for promotion, but he has not been considered for promotion in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The High Court further held in the impugned order that in the counter affidavit it was indicated that as per the messages received from the Head Quarters, only Lance Naiks had been considered for promotion, but such consideration was not proper as under the rules, Constables on completion of ten years of service were also eligible and there was no justification to ignore the case of the respondent no.1 for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Accordingly, the High Court, by the impugned order, directed the appellants to consider the case of respondent no.1 for promotion from 1998 onwards.
5. We have heard Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants. No one has, however, appeared for the respondents despite notice.
6. We find that under the relevant rules and circulars issued by the Directorate General, CISF, Constables who have completed ten years of service in the rank of Constable including the service rendered in the rank of Lance Naik prior to 10.10.1997, were eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable and also came within the zone of Consideration, could only be considered
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.