SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Rama Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1713-1714 of 2022 (@ SLP (c) Nos.30487-30488 of 2017) with Civil Appeal Nos.1715-1716 of 2022 (@ SLP (c) Nos.10513-10514 of 2018)
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Service Law – Promotion – Reversal of promotion to post of Office Superintendent – Post of Office Superintendent is a selection post and criterion for promotion is seniority-cum-merit – Respondent no.3 entered service earlier on 16.7.1990 but in lower grade and was promoted to post of Senior Clerk, only on 9.7.1997 – In contrast, appellant entered service on 1.9.1995 in higher grade as a Steno-Typist (equivalent to Senior Clerk) – She was senior to respondent no.3 in the post, just below feeder cadre – Overlooking inter-se seniority position of the two, respondent no.3 as a Scheduled Caste person was granted accelerated promotion on 1.9.2005, to post of Revenue Superintendent – Besides, appellant by virtue of her higher pay scale in post of Accountant in feeder cadre, also deserves seniority above respondent no.3 with his lower pay scale, on account of the provision made in O.M. dated 12.12.1988 – It was a selection post and appellant contrastingly had an unblemished service record all throughout her career – Appellant was more deserving – Unblemished service record of appellant vis-à-vis pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent no.3, (eventually resulting in penalty), were taken into account – Higher pay in same grade as per applicable O.M., is a reliable indicator for determining inter-se seniority – A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post – Employer’s preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated – Contrary opinion by High Court set aside. [Rule 5-B (8) of Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937] (Paras 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in these two appeals is to the judgment dated 22.9.2017 in the Special Appeal Nos.87 and 88 of 2014, filed by Appellant Rama Negi and Special Appeal Nos. 96 of 2014 and 97 of 2014, filed by Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court under the impugned judgment dismissed the Appeals and upheld the judgment of Single Judge whereby the appellant Rama Negi’s promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the Cantonment Board was quashed and the Writ Petitions of the respondent no.3, Gopal Ram Arya were allowed.
Findings of Court:
Higher pay in the same grade as per applicable O.M., is a reliable indicator for determining inter-se seniority. In this Court’s perception, the decision to prefer the appellant over respondent no.3 for promotion is in tune with the applicable parameters. As such the contrary opinion by the High Court does not merit our approval. Accordingly, the Appeals stand allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Leave granted. The challenge in these two appeals is to the judgment dated 22.9.2017 in the Special Appeal Nos.87 and 88 of 2014, filed by Appellant Rama Negi and Special Appeal Nos. 96 of 2014 and 97 of 2014, filed by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. The Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court under the impugned judgment dismissed the Appeals and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant Rama Negi's promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the Cantonment Board was quashed and the Writ Petitions of the respondent no.3, Gopal Ram Arya were allowed.
2. Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The Cantonment Board, Ranikhet is represented by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3.
3. As the contentions of the learned counsel are based on the inter se seniority of the two contesting parties, their service details in the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet are reproduced, in the following chart.
| S. No. | Gopal Ram Arya (R-3/WP in HC) | Rama Negi (appellant) | ||
| Date | Description | Date | Description | |
| 1. | 16.07.1990 09.07.1997 | Appointed as Typist/Junior Clerk on ad-hoc basis. Promoted to Senior Clerk | 01.09.1995 | Appointed as Steno Typist equivalent to Senior Clerk |
| 2. | 01.09.2005 | Promoted to Revenue Superintendent (feeder cadre) (as SC category) | 01.10.2009 | Promoted to the post of Accountant (feeder cadre) |
| 3. | 28.11.2011 | Charge sheet for dereliction of duty, negligence | ||
| 4. | 01.02.2012 25.3.2013 | Officiating charge as Office Superintendent. Retrospectively promoted to Office Superintendent w.e.f. 1.2.2012 | ||
| 5. | 17.8.2016 | Penalty of recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on DP by Board (R2) | ||
4. As can be seen from above, the appellant initially joined service in the Cantonment Board, as a Steno Typist (equivalent to Senior Clerk), on 1.9.1995. The respondent no.3 after entering service initially as a Junior Clerk on 16.7.1990, was promoted to the Post of Steno Typist/Senior Clerk on 9.7.1997, around 22 months after the appellant directly joined service in the higher post. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 though junior, was promoted to the post of Revenue Superintendent on 1.9.2005 by giving him the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Caste person. The appellant was subsequently promoted to the equivalent post of Accountant on 1.10.2009. Since promotion to the respondent no.3 was by conferring reservation benefit, appellant being subsequently promoted to the said cadre on 1.10.2009, she expected restoration of her seniority.
5. The promotion for the next post of Office Superintendent is governed by Rule 5-B (8) of the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 ("the Rules" for short), and the same reads as under:
Provided that promotion of selection posts shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit."
6. Under Annexure E of the Rules, the post of Office Superintendent together with other posts of Accountant, Toll Superintendent and Revenue Superintendent in the Cantonment Board of Ranikhet, is included in the category of "selection posts" and the relevant portion reads as under:
1. Post declared as Selection posts under Cantonment Boards in Central Command.
Authority: GOC-in-C, Central Command, Lucknow Letter No., 82562/Classification/LC6 dated 12.1.77 and [dated 25.4.1980]
**** **** **** ****
**** **** **** ****
24. Ranikhet Office Supdt. Accountant, Toll Supdt. Rev. Supdt. Forest Ranger, Jamadar (PWD) Sanitary Jamadar, Head Mali and Toll Moharrir (Non-Matric)."
The Rules
B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu
K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.
Jagathigowda C.N. v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank & Ors.
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Seema Sharma & Ors.
Promotion – A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post.
Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Catch-up rule applies when general category senior reaches same promotional grade as reserved category junior on same date; original seniority restored for next unreserved promotion, overriding earli....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Promotions in public service must be based on the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and not on the timing of appointments or subsequent qualifications of other candidate....
Appointments made in violation of statutory rules are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are in nullity.
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.