2024 Supreme(SC) 80
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Director General, Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research (CSIR) – Appellant
Versus
J. K. Prashar – Respondent
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.
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. 1
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
