SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 80

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Director General, Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research (CSIR) - Appellant
Versus
J.K. Prashar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1311-1312 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020)
Decided on : 29-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Hooda,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, AOR Ms. Rashi Choudhary,Adv. Mr. Keshav Pawar,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jay Savla,Sr.Adv. Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion – Denial of promotion when there was no impediment for promotion by selection is untenable.

Headnote:

Service Law – Promotion – Services of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of them as Section Officer – Promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 was interfered with by High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – There was no impediment for promotion by selection of respondent No.1 to post of Under Secretary under statutory rules – Action of appellant in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by High Court – Impugned judgment rendered by High Court upheld.[Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982] (Paras 7, 8 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeals under Article 136 of Constitution of India are directed against Judgment dated 28th May, 2019 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere with Order dated 17th December, 2018 passed in CWP No. 20984/2016. By said judgment, High Court had accepted writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and reversed promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment rendered by High Court does not require any interference. However, present adjudication shall be confined to case of respondent no. 1 and will not be considered as a precedent.

Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points
  • Supreme Court appeals under Article 136 challenge High Court judgment upholding reversal of promotions of respondents 2 and 3 to Under Secretary due to violation of statutory rules. [1000788680001]
  • Appellant argues respondent 1 ineligible for Under Secretary promotion as he lacked independent Section Officer duties, failing eligibility under statutory rules. [1000788680002]
  • Statutory rules require promotion to Under Secretary by merit from Section Officers (General) and Senior Personal Assistants (re-designated Private Secretaries) with at least 8 years approved service in Rs. 6500-200-10500 grade, based on Departmental Promotion Committee interview. [1000788680003] (!)
  • Vacancies filled in 2:1 ratio from Section Officers (General) to Senior Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries; unfilled vacancies from one cadre not carried to another. (!)
  • 25% of Private Secretaries with minimum 6 years as Senior Personal Assistants to work as Section Officer (General) for one year before Under Secretary consideration. (!)
  • Respondents 2 and 3 promoted based on certificates confirming Section Officer duties in year before DPC (5 March 2011). [1000788680004]
  • Respondent 1 formally appointed Section Officer on 15 March 2004, undisputed by appellant. [1000788680005]
  • Certificates for respondents 2 and 3 indicate Section Officer services on attachment only, without formal appointment. [1000788680006]
  • Appellant grading argument irrelevant as High Court deemed respondents 2 and 3 ineligible; no impediment to respondent 1's selection-based promotion under rules. [1000788680007]
  • Respondent 1 superannuated on 31 July 2019 during litigation. [1000788680008]
  • High Court judgment upheld; adjudication confined to respondent 1, not precedent. [1000788680009]
  • Appeals dismissed. [1000788680010]

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment dated 28th May, 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere with the Order dated 17th December, 2018 passed in CWP No. 20984/2016. By the said judgment, the High Court had accepted the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and reversed the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘statutory rules’).

3. The appellant-CSIR has questioned the decision of the High Court on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Under Secretary as he had never performed the duties of a Section Officer on independent basis and hence, he was not possessed of the eligibility criteria under the Statutory rules.

4. The extant rule of statutory rules is extracted below:-

    “Under Secretary/Administrative Officer(Rs. 10,000-325-15,200)

    Recruitment to this Grade shall be made by promotion, on the basis of merit from amongst Section Officers (General) and Sr. Personal Asstts.(now re-designated as Private Secretaries) who have rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in the grade of Rs. 6500-200-10,500 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee which shall interview the eligible candidates.

    i. Vacancies in this grade occurring in a year shall be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from amongst Section Officers (Gen.) and Sr. Personal Asstts. (now redesignated as Private Secretaries). In the event of non-availability of suitable officers for filling up vacancies earmarked for a Cadre, such unfilled vacancies shall not be filled up from officers of another Cadre; and

    ii. 25% of the Private Secretaries who have completed minimum six years of approved service as Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-designated as Private Secretaries) be made to work as Section officer (Gen.) for a period of one year before they are considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer.

    Note: Governing Body also approved appointments/selections made so far as Sr. Personal Asstts., now re-designated as Private Secretaries to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer (Gr. I) in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500.”

5. The High Court, upon an analysis of the factual and legal scenario found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on the basis of certificates issued to them on 1st March, 2011 affirming that they had performed the duties of Section Officer in the year preceding the date of the DPC i.e. 5th March, 2011.

6. So far as case of respondent no. 1 is concerned, the High Court took note of the Order dated 15th March, 2004 whereby, the said respondent was formally appointed as Section Officer, which fact was not denied by the respondents in their counter to the writ petition.

7. During the course of oral submissions (supplemented by written submissions), learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the certificates held by respondent nos. 2 and 3 whereby, they were given the benefit of one year’s experience as Section Officers for being promoted to the post of Under Secretary. A perusal of these certificates reflects that services of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of them as Section Officer. It may be noted that the pertinent plea raised by respondent no. 1 regarding he having been appointed as Section Officer vide Order dated 15th March, 2004 was not disputed by the appellant in its reply before the High Court.

8. Another plea was taken by the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the promotion to the post of Under Secretary was to be done as per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top