BADRI NATH versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 29-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BADRINATH 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law-Promotion-Right to be considered for- 'Fairness' in 
matter of consideration for promotion-Concept of-Manner in which adverse 
remarks can be taken into consideration-Relative strength of old remarks-
Relevance of remarks made before an earlier promotion-Powers of Court to 
issue a mandamus to promote a candidate to super time scale or to assess 
his grading-Scope-Constitution of India-Arts. 16, 226. 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Judicial Review-Powers of Court 
A 
B 
c 
to interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committee- D 
Scope-Wednesbury Principle-Applicability of 
Art. 356-Governor 's order passed during President's rule-It must be 
treated as final so far as the State is concerned 
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service and E 
promoted to the selection grade in 1972. His name was considered for 
promotion in the super time scale by a Committee but he was not found 
suitable as at that time disciplinary cases were pending against the appellant 
and in one such case a 'censure' was recommended to the UPSC which was 
awarded by the State Government The appellant's juniors were promoted. The F 
appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting his appeal 
against non-promotion to super time scale and for the issue of a writ of 
mandamus to direct the State Government to promote the writ petitioner w.e.f. 
16.1.1977 to the super-time scale, being the date on which his junior was 
promoted to the said scale. These petitions were transferred to the Central 
Administrative Tribunal and were dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
G 
The appellant submitted that the State acted in a grossly biased manner, 
the proceedings of the Joint Screening Committee dated 30.8.1979 were 
vitiated because one disciplinary case though dropped by the Governor during 
Governor's rule, was kept alive and an order of censure was passed; that H 
573 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A certain adverse remarks though prior to his promotion to the selection grade 
were highlighted and relied upon by the Joint Screening Committee and undue 
importance was given to certain very old remarks which were general 
comments in his CRs and due importance was not given to the positive aspects 
of his career even though they were incorporated in his CR~. 
B 
The respondent contended that as there were adverse remarks in his 
CRs throughout and also disciplinary cases which ended in 'censure', 
therefore, the State Government took a decision not to give him super-time 
scales; that the Committee's evaluation could not be questioned under Art. 
226 or within the limited scope of the jurisdiction of the Central 
C Administrative Tribunal and even the Supreme Court cannot go into merits 
of the assessment made by the Joint Screening Committee and that there were 
no malafides on the part of the erstwhile Chief Secretaries of the State, the 
doctrine of necessity was applied to the facts of the case and the fact that 
certain adverse confidential reports were written earlier by these officers, 
that does not disqualify them from sitting in the Screening Committees at a 
D later point of time. 
The points raised for consideration were (1) Whether, the award of 
'censure' in a disciplinary case by the State Government was contrary to the 
directions of the Governor during the President's Rule? (2) Whether the 
assessment of the Confidential Reports of the appellant by the Joint Screening 
E Committee was vitiated by relying upon inadmissible or trivial material and 
by not giving weight to positive sides of his career? (3) Whether very old 
remarks made before the appellant's earlier promotion to selection grade 
.could be relied upon strongly? (4) Whether the then Chief Secretary should 
have recused himself from participating in the Joint Screening Committee 
p meeting held on 30.8.1979 or whether the doctrine of 'necessity' applied? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1.1 Under Art. 356 of the Constitution, when the President vests the 
Governor with the powers of the State Government, the Governor can exercise 
G all the powers of the State Government, without the advice of his Council of 
Ministers. The Governor becomes responsible to the Union Parliament. The 
Governor can exercise the statutory power exercisable by the State 
Government. In the instant case

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.