LexBALBIR SINGH BEDI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 376
BALBIR SINGH BEDI
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1273 of 2004)
FEBRUARY 11, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
Service Law - Promotion - On the basis of seniority-cum-
merit - Case of the appellant was considered a/ongwith other
C eligible candidates for the post of Battalion Commander but
a person junior to him (respondent no.5), was promoted to the
said post after considering his past five years' ACR and other
records - Writ petition filed by appellant - Dismissed by High
Court - On appeal, held: Where a promotion is to be given
o on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit", such promotion will
not automatically be granted on the basis of seniority alone -
A person lower in the seniority list, can be promoted, ignoring
the claim of the senior person, who failed to achieve the
benchmark i.e. minimum requisite merit - Fixing a criteria, or
E providing for minimum necessary merit, falls within the
exclusive domain of policy making and cannot be interfered
with by courts in the exercise of their judicial powers, unless
the same is found to be off the mark, unreasonable, or
malafide - Even in the absence of the executive instructions,
F the State/employer has the right to adopt any reasonable and
bonafide criteria to assess the merit, for the purpose of
promotion on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit" - The
present case is not the one where, respondent no. 5 was found
to be more meritorious, in fact, the same is admittedly a case,
where the appellant was unable to achieve the benchmark set,
G as it is evident from the record that his ACRs were average,
and the benchmark fixed by the State was 'Good' -
Furthermore, appellant did not approach the court with clean
hands, clean mind and clean objective - He had faced
H
376
BALBIR SINGH BEDI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
377
ORS.
criminal prosecution under ss. 7 & 13(ii) of the PC Act, 1988 A
and ss.467146814711120-8 /PC, but did not disclose this fact
either before the High Coult or before the Supreme Coult -
Claim of appellant for promotion therefore rightly rejected -
Punjab Home Guard, Class-I Rules, 1988 - r. 8.
Service Law - Promotion - "seniority-cum~merit" and 8
"merit-cum-seniority" - Distinction between - Held: The
principle of "seniority-cum-merit" and "merit-cum-seniority"
are conceptually different - In the case of the former, there is
greater emphasis upon seniority even though the same is not
the deciding factor, while in the case of the latter, merit is the
C
deciding factor.
The appellant, a District Commander, claimed to have
become eligible for substantive promotion to the post of
Battalion Commander as per the rules applicable. The o
case of the appellant was considered alongwith other
eligible candidates, but a person junior to him
(respondent no.5), was promo.ted to the said post after
considering his past five years' Annual Confidential
Reports ('ACR') and other records. The appellant made
E
repeated representations in this regard, but the same
were not considered.
Employees of another department governed by the
same rules, filed Writ Petition in the High Court
contending that their cases for promotion were not to be
F
considered in the light of executive instructions dated
29.12.2000, as the. vacancies on promotional posts had
occurred much before the issuance of said executive
instructions. The High Court, however, directed the
authorities to consider the promotion of the parties G
therein, ignoring the instructions dated 29.12.2000.
The appellant retired on 31.12.2001 and filed Writ
Petition seeking promotion and quashing of executive
instructions issued on 29.12.2000 as well as on 6.9.2001.
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 3 S.C.R.
A The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and therefore
the instant appeal.
The appellant inter alia submitted that that
recruitment to the post of Battalion Commander is
governed by Rule 8 of the Punjab Home Guard, Class-I
B Rules, 1988 which prescribes that selection to the post
must be made on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit";
and that the High Court committed an error by not giving
weightage to seniority.
C
Dismissing the appeal, the Court ·
HELD: 1.1. Efficiency of administration is of
paramount importance, and therefore, whilst adequate
weightage is given to seniority, merit must also be duly
considered. Even if a promotion is to be made on the
D basis of "seniority-cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.