PURAN DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 23-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PURAN DAS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
lndo---Tibetan Border Police (Non-Gazetted Telecommunication Cadre) 
C Rules, 1983-Promotion-Entitlement to-With retrospective ejfect-
Permissibility-Employee becoming eligible for promotion test and qualifying 
subsequent to consideration for promotion-Claim of employee to promotion 
with retrospective effect because he was debarred from appearing in promotion 
test due to suspension/dismissal from service-Held: Employee could not be 
D considered for promotion since he was not qualified on the date when 
consideration for promotion was made-(Jiving retrospective effect to his 
qualification is impermissible. 
Appellant had joined Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force as a 
Constable. He was placed under sus:pension and was later removed from 
E service on a different charges. High Court, on a writ petition set aside the 
order of removal from service dJrecting all consequential benefits. 
Thereafter having qualified in CE:rtain tests, he became eligible for 
departmental promotion test. His representation seeking consequential 
benefits, was rejected by the concerned authorities, he filed Writ Petition, 
F seeking the consequential reliefs. During pendency of the Writ Petition, 
juniors of the appellant were promoted. Appellant filed another Writ 
Petition challenging the promotion. High Court held that since he did not 
possess requisite qualification for promotion at the time of consideration 
for promotion, his claim for promotion from the date his juniors were 
promoted was not acceptable. The earlier Writ Petition regarding 
G consequential benefits was also decided denying promotion from earlier 
point of time. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: At the point of time when the consideration was made the 
H 
414 
PU RAN DAS v. U.0.1. f PASA Y AT. J.) 
415 
appellant was not qualified. The appellant could not be considered for A 
) ,,_,,. 
promotion as he did not have the basic qualification under the Indo-
I 
Tibetan Border Police (Non-Gazetted Telecommunication Cadre) Rules, 
1983. He became eligible for promotion test and qualified subsequently. 
The question of giving any retrospective effect to his qualification is clearly 
impermissible. (417-G; 418-B-q 
... 
B 
C.O. Arunugam and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1991) Supp. 
2 sec 199, distinguished. 
~ 
.J 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5024-5025 of 
1998. 
c 
From the Final Order & Judgment and dated 12.12.1996 of Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P.Nos. 562 of 1987 and 16 of 1987. 
E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant. 
T.S. Doabia, Mrs. Rekha Pandey and Ms. Sushma Suri for the D 
··Respondents. 
--..; 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
;I • 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. These appeals are interlinked and are disposed 
E 
of by this common judgment. 
Appellant challenges the judgments of a Division Bench of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court at Shimla holding that the appellant was not entitled to 
the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors were granted promotion. 
The appellant's case was that he was deprived of the opportunity of acquiring F 
the requisite qualification for promotion as he was initially placed under 
suspension and subsequently removed from service. After reinstatement he 
qualified at the requisite tests and on the basis of such qualification he shall 
be deemed to have acquired the right to be considered along with his juniors 
when the consideration was made. 
G 
The factual background is as follows:-
I 
Appellant joined the lndo-Tibetan Border Police Force as a Constable 
-~ 
on 7.1.1967. In 1969 he was promoted as Head Constable. On l l.9.1973 he 
was suspended from service as a criminal case was registered against him. He 
was subsequently acquitted in that criminal case. During the period of H 
416 
SUPREME coL:RT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A suspension, appellant was directed to stay at Taradevi and not to leave the 
Headquarters. On 25.10.1974 his application for station leave was rejected 
and he was directed to stay at Taradevi. Notice was given to him for proposing 
disciplinary action for not reporting at Taradevi. After enquiry the appellant 
was held guilty of charge of deserting the services during the period of 
B suspension. On 14.2.1976 show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to 
show-cause as to why the punishment of removal from servi

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