LexDEVISINGH MEENA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'i DEVISINGH MEENA v. UNION OF INDIA NOVEMBER 30, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] A B Service Law-Promotion-DPC not including the name of the officer in the panel for promotion-Minister at the stage of approval C 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 to promotion-In view of subsequent disapproval.of the claim of the D officer by Minister, claim not sustainable on the basis of previous order of the 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 E 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 F 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. 745 H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A 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 of the 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of F the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. His claim relates to the post of Senior 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 G Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade from 1995. His stand was that the Minister of Railways 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 H DEVISINGHMEENAv. UNIONOFINDIA[PASAYAT,J.] 747 to the post of Chief Commercial Manager in the grade w.e.f. I. I. I 995. A 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. B 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 of the challege. A speaking order was passed by the competent authority C on the representation. Therefore, OA No. 245 of 2001 was filed. Subsequently, prayer in the OA was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.