NAVNEET RAJAN WASAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 12-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/y 
NAVNEET RAJAN WASAN 
A 
v. 
• t 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS . 
MARCH 12, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE] 
B 
Service Law : 
Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 : Rule Hndian Police 
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954: Rules 3(3)(b) and 41, Indian c 
Police Service (Appiontment by Promotioi1) Regulation 1965-Police Officer 
belonging to Indian Police Service-Promotor-Not grantetf-Direction from 
Tribunal-Officer promoted to senior scale-On challenge, Tribunal relying 
on a memo, set aside the promotion order-Held T1ibunal was not justified 
in not considering Rule 9 of Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules on which 
the claim was principally based-Order of Tribunal set asid<:-Case remanded D 
to Tribunal. 
J 
4 
The appellant, an officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) having 
not been given promotion even aller completion of 4 years of service on 
the ground that he had not passed the language test, approached the E 
Tribunal. The Tribunal while allowing his application directed the govern· 
men! to consider his case for promotion. The appeal filed by the Govern· 
men! before this Court was dismissed. The Government issue show-cause 
notices to 9 promotee officers, including respondent Nos. 4 to 6, whose 
seniority was to be affected while implementing the Tribunal's order. After 
( 
considering the representations of the officers, the Government issued F 
.. 
order allowing senior time-scale to the appellant and placed him above the 
respondents. Respondents No. 4 to 6 challenged the promotion order of 
the appellant before the Tribnnal. The Tribunal allowed their application 
and set aside the promotion of the appellant. Hence the present appeal by 
the appellant. 
G 
The contention of the appellant was that contention he raised before 
\.. ,._ 
the Tribunal relying on Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 
1954 which was of crucial relevance for determining the issue involved was 
not at all considered. It was further submitted that no satisfactory or 
reliable material was placed on behalf of the three respondents so as to H 
259 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A entitle the Tribunal to conclude that after inclusion in the seniority list 
they officiated in cadre post. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The grievance of the appellant that Rule 9 of the Indian 
B Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954 which was of crucial relevance for 
determining the issue involved was not considered by the Tribunal, is well 
founded and genuine. It is found that appellant's contest to the claim of 
the three respondents was principally based on Rule 9 of the Indian Police 
Service (Cadre) Rules. In spite of this the Tribunal did not advert to the 
C contentions raised by the appellant. [264-A-C] 
2. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant that the 
respondents did not officiate in the cadre post on the basis of a memo 
issued by the State Government. The memo was not a formal order 
supported by a proper affidavit but was only a written instructions given 
D by the client to his lawyer. The Tribunal was not at all justified in 
entertaining and basing its findings on a document which was not legally 
permissible nor properly brought on record. Besides, .the communication 
doesnot support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that three con-
cerned respondents officiated in "senior 'cadre' post'. [264-D, F-G] 
E 
3. The Tribunal did not approach the questions raised before it from 
a proper perspective nor did it take into consideration the plea raised by 
the appellant. Therefore, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside 
and the applications are remanded to the Tribunal for proper disposal in 
accordance with law and in the light of the present judgment as ex-
F 
peditiously as possible. [264-H; 265-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal Nos. 4226-27 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.93 of the Central Ad-
G ministrative Tribunal, Hyderabed in Original Applications. Nos. 823 and 
919 of 1992. 
AS. Nambiar, Ms. Binu Tamta and P. Parmeswaran for the Union 
of India. 
H 
L. Nageswara Rao, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, K.R. Kumar, C. 
• 
>-' 
I 
N.R. WASANv. U.0.1. [M.K.MUKHERJEE, J.] 
261 
Balasubramanian, J.P. Misra, Y. Prabhakara Rao for the Respondent Nos. A 
4 & 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted. Head the learned counsel 
for the parties. 
B 
These two appeals have been heard toget

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