DEVISINGH MEENA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 745

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

DEVISINGH MEENA v. UNION OF INDIA.pdf

Judgment text

DEVISINGH MEENA v. UNION OF INDIA NOVEMBER 30, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Service Law-Promotion-DPC not including the name ofthe officer in the panel for promotion-Minister at the stage ofapproval included his name in the panel-DPC after reconsidering the case giving reasons for non-inclusion of his name-Accepted by the Minister-Claim for promotion-Denied by courts below-On appeal, held: Officer, since his name not recommended by DPC, not entitled 'i to promotion-In view ofsubsequent disapproval. ofthe claim ofthe officer by Minister, claim not sustainable on the basis ofprevious order ofthe Minister. Appellant-Officer claimed promotion to the post of Chief Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade in Railways, on the ground that Minister had approved his promotion.

His representation was dismissed by the Authorities on the ground that by a subsequent order, the Minister agreed for non-inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion. His application claiming promotion was dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal. The order was further upheld by High Court in Writ Petition. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: There is no scope for interference with the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. There was no challenge G -... ·l to the Minister's subsequent order. From the records it is revealed that initialy, when DPC had referred the panel to the Minister for his approval, the name of the appellant was not included in the list. The Minister while approving the panel included the name of the appellant and then approved the panel. Subsequently, the matter was placed before DPC for re-consideration in view ofthe observations made by the Minister.

Thereafter, DPC put up a detailed note indicating the reasons as to why the name of the appellant can not be included for promotion. The Minister accepted the reasons given , by the DPC for non-inclusion and further approved the panel which did not figure appellant's name. It is not in dispute as per applicable provisions, the promotions have been granted. Appellant's name was not recommended by the DPC and, therefore, he could not have been appointed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11) [748-A, B, C, D, F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.. 5543 of 2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 16. 02. 2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Application No. 16599 of 2003. Pramod B. Agarwala and Praveena Gautam for the Appellant. R. Mohan, ASG. , Kiran Bhardwaj and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted 2.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofa Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. His claim relates to the post ofSenior Administrative Grade. He filed OA 245 of2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for Short the "Tribunal"). Before that he had moved OA 8639 of 1997 making the grievance that was not granted the post of Chief Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade from 1995. His stand was that the Minister ofRailways had approved his promotion in the said grade, but the same was not given effect to by the respondents. OA was decided on merits by order dated 15. 1. 1999. While dismissing the OA, Tribunal had observed that the applicant was not entitled for promotion DEVISINGHMEENAv. UNIONOFINDIA[PASAYAT,J. ] 747 to the post ofChief Commercial Manager in the grade w. e. f. I. I. I995. The appellant had preferred Special Civil Application No.

10899 of2000 before the Gujarat High Court and while dismissing the same, learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant for his promotion in the light of existing rules and regulations. 3. Subsequently, Misc. application no. 132 of2001 was moved by the appellant in the said Special Civil Application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 7. 3. 2001 in view of the appellant making a statement that he would proceed before the appropriate forum in respect ofthe challege. A speaking order was passed by the competent authority on the representation. Therefore, OA No. 245 of 2001 was filed. Subsequently, prayer in the OA was for setting aside the order dated 2. 2. 2001 passed by the Member, Railway Board and for direction to the Railways authorities to consider his case for promotion w. e. f. I996. 4.

It is to be noted that the representation was rejected on the ground that though the Minister had initially approved his promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade, subsequently, by order dated 26. 4. I997 he concurred with non-inclusion of his name in the panel . He was not considered for promotion. Before the Tribunal stand ofthe respondent was that merely because the Minister had earlier recommended for inclusion of appellant's name in the Senior Administrative Grade at an earlier stage, that did not confer any right to get promotion particularly when the same Minister had subsequently approved the exclusion ofhis name. 5. The stand of the appellant in support of the appeal is that once the Minister had approved inclusion ofhis name, there was no question of his subsequently disapproving the inclusion merely becasue it was brought to his notice that inclusion ofhis'name was impermissible. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted th.

at the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') did not recommend appellant's name. On his representation, the Minister directed his empanelment. Subsequently, when materials were placed before the Minister, he directed that there was no scope for empanelment of t appellant. 7. At this juncture it is neccessary to note that there was no • challenge to the Minister's subsequent order. From the records it is revealed that in the order of 1996, when DPC had referred the panel to the Minister for his approval, the name ofthe appellant was not included in the list. The Minister while approving the panel included the name of the appellant and then approved the panel. Subsequently, the Member, Special Railway Board, who was one of the members of the DPC, advised the Secretary, Railway Board, to place the matter before DPC for re-consideration in view ofthe observations made by the Minister. 8.

Thereafter, DPC put up a detailed note indicating the reasons as to why the name of the appellant can not be included for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade. The Minister accepted the reasons given by the DPC for non-inclusion and furhter approved the panel which did not figure appellant's name. • 9. It is not in dispute as per applicable provisions, the promotions have been granted. Appellant's name was not recommended by the DPC and, therefore, he could not have been appointed. 10. Appellant's stand is that once the Minister had directed inclusion ofhis name, there was no scope for making a departure from the view. This stand is clearly unsustainable. As has been rightly contended by th(: learned counsel for the respondent, at the first stage though the Minister had directed inclusion ofappellant's name, subsequently when relevant material was placed before him, he took a view different from what he had taken earlier.

As noted above, there was no challenge to the Minister's orders disapproving the case ofthe appellant. 11. That being so, there is no scope for interference with the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. - K. K. T. Appeal dismissed.