LexSIYA RAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND. ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
SIYA RAM
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND. ORS.
DECEMBER 16, 1997
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, J.T.)
B
SeJVice Law :
Promotion-Through Depwtmental Promotion Co111mittee-Plea of
bias against one of the Members of DPC-Allegations of patronage or C
f avowitism for a particular candidate. leveled against one of the Me111bers of
the DPC by the Appellant-No evidence on record to co1roborate the allega-
tions-Tribunal on exa111ination of Mark sheets, however, found, that Me111ber
of DPC awarding 111ore marks to Appellant tha11 the marks awarded to so
called patronised candidate-Making of unsubstantiated allegatio11s agai11st
Member of the DPC deprecated-Admi11istrative law-Natural justice-Bias._ D
Promotion-Selection criteria-Promotion for the post of Chief Person-
nel Inspect01~Selectio11 made solely on the basis of viva voce---Validity
of-{]nder the Guidelines issued by the Railways, separate marks presc1ibed
for different atflibutes of the candidates---Qualifying marks also presC1ined for
professional ability for the aggregate-Me111bers of Selection Board well versed
with the requirements of the post-Nonns laid down for the Selection Board
to f ollow-ln these circumstances appellalll's plea that selection based solely
011 viva voce could not be fair, rejected-Recrnit111ent process-Se/ection-ln-
teJView-Viva voce as the sole test-Propriety of
For two posts of Chief Personnel Inspectors in Railways, four per-
sons including the appellant, were eligible. After selection procedure,
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were selected/empenelled. The criteria adopted
E
F
by the Selection Board was allocation of separate marks for (i) profes-
sional ability, (ii) personality, leadership, technical and educational G
qualifications, (iii) record of service and (iv) seniority.
Though Respondent No. 4 was lower in the seniority to the appellant
but it was admitted that both of them were promoted to the post of
Divisional Personnel Inspector on the same day. ~e appellant challenged
his non-selection before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by it.
H
513
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
Hence this appeal.
Tuo principal contentions were raised by the appellant, viz. (1) one
of the Members of the Selection Board was favourably inclined towards
Respondent No. 4, and (2) the Rules regarding selection permitted only
oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held and
B hence, result of the selection test only on the basis of viva voce could not
be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
C
HELD : 1. As far as the contention of bias against one of the
Members of the Selection Board in favour of Respondent No. 4 is con-
cerned, the appellant could not substantiate the same. Apart from his bald
assertion that the Member had patronised Respondent No. 4, there is
nothing . on record to corroborate the same. As a matter of fact the
Tribunal examined the marks-sheets given by the three members of the
D Selection Board and found that in fact that Member (against whom
allegations were leveled) had given more marks to the appellant than given
by him to the 4th Respondent. This Court does not appreciate such types
of allegations against the members of the Selection Board. It is not proper
to do so in the absence of any material and so the allegations of patronage
E or favouritism alleged against that Member of the Selection Board are
rejected. [517-G-H; 518-A:I
2. Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways is a selection post. The
Selection Board consisted of high ranking officials, well versed with the
req11irements of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms have
F been laid for the Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the
same. Apart from the objection that excessive marks have been allocated
for viva voce, the appellaillt has been unable to point out any illegality or
irregularity in the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the
post of Chief Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out. It is not for
G the Court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview in
a case like the present 1me. Sometimes, only interview is considered to be
the best method for certain posts. The selection made for two posts of Chief
Personnel Inspector in the present case was according to the rules. There
is no infirmity in the selection process. [520-H; 521-A-B]
•
H
LilaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.