RAMA NEGI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 02-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
487
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 487
487
RAMA NEGI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1713-1714 of 2022)
MARCH 2, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion – Seniority-cum-merit – In the instant
case, the appellant was promoted to the post of Office
Superintendent (selection post) in the Cantonment Board – The
promotion of respondent no.3 was declined on the ground that
respondent no. 3 was drawing lower pay scale than the appellant
in the post of Accountant (the post from which promotion was to be
made) and was also charge-sheeted under discplinary proceeding,
which charges were also accepted by respondent no.3 – Aggrieved
by the resolution favouring the appellant, respondent no.3 filed
appeals before the single judge of the High Court, claiming, amongst
other things, promotion to such post – Single Judge allowed the
writ petition on the basis of the finding that respondent no. 3 is
senior to the appellant and the appellant should not have been
considered senior to him by virtue of her higher pay scale in the
post of Accountant and also that no decision, as such, was taken
by the authority over the charges – Aggrieved by the decision,
appellant approached Division Bench of the High Court – In the
meantime, disciplinary proceedings took place over the charges and
respondent no.3 was found guilty – The Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal holding that the disciplinary proceedings
intiated for the fault committed by the subordinate staff of the
delinquent officer – Hence instant appeal – Held: The Cantonment
Board in their deliberations made on 11.1.2012 not only considered
the appellant to be senior to the respondent no.3 but also considered
her to be more deserving for promotion as the best, suitable and fit
candidate, for the responsible post – Respondent no.3 was penalized
pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding for dereliction of duty and
misconduct and he suffered the penalty of recovery of Rs.10,000/-
from his salary – Seen in this context, the appellant was more
deserving – That apart, the disciplinary action was not challenged
by respondent no.3 – He cannot, therefore, set up a better claim for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
promotion, to a selection category post – As far as the issue of
higher pay scale being the basis for seniority in the feeder cadre,
the same is clearly provided in the O.M. dated 12.12.1988 – The
issue received due consideration by the Cantonment Board and was
answered in favour of the appellant – Cantonment Fund Service
Rules, 1937.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 5-B (8) read with Annexure ‘E’ of the
Cantonment Fund Service Rules, 1937 makes it clear that the
post of Office Superintendent is a “selection post” and the
criterion for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. [Para 17][495-B]
B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (1998) 6 SCC 720 :
[1998] 3 SCR 782; K. Samantaray v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 286 : [2003] 3 Suppl.
SCR 669; Jagathigowda C.N. v. Chairman, Cauvery
Gramina Bank & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 677 : [1996] 4
Suppl. SCR 190; Haryana State Electronics
Development Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Seema
Sharma & Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 311 : [2009] 7 SCR 662
– relied on.
2. In the present case, the Cantonment Board in their
deliberations made on 11.1.2012 not only considered the
appellant to be senior to the respondent no.3 but also considered
her to be more deserving for promotion as the best, suitable
and fit candidate, for the responsible post. The respondent no.3
was penalized pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding for
dereliction of duty and misconduct and he suffered the penalty
of recovery of Rs.10,000/- from his salary. Seen in this context,
the appellant was more deserving. That apart, the disciplinary
action was not challenged by the respondent no.3. He cannot
therefore set up a better claim for promotion, to a selection
category post. [Para 22][498-H; 499-A-B]
3. As far as the issue of higher pay scale being the basis for
seniority in the feeder cadre, the same is clearly provided in the
O.M. dated 12.12.1988. The issue received due consideration
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
by the Cantonment Board and was answered in favour of the
appellant. But this aspect was held against both the appellant
and the Board, due to an inadvertent reference to the wrong Office
Memorandum dated 10.09.1985 by the High Court. Having regard
to the manner in which the issue was examined and decided by
the Boar

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