SMT. NUT.AN ARVIND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 15-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
SMT. NUT.AN ARVIND 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 15, 1996 
[K, RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Central Civil Services-Pro1notion-Departmental Promotion 
Committee-Field ~f choice-Prior to May 12, 1988 011 the basis of se11iority-
Administrative instructio11s issued there~fter-(;rading on the basis of Confi-
dential Reports Assessed 'Very Good' and 'Good'-Those with 'very Good' 
promoted-None with 'Good' included in the panel~eld Valid-Court not to 
sit over the assessment made by DPC as an appellate authority--Officers 
competent to write C011fidential Reports-JI was for DPC to consider at the 
time lVhen assessment of the respective candidate is made. 
Union ~f India ~f India Etc. v. Majji Jangamayya Etc., [1977] 2 SCR 
28, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2546of1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.94 of the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1796 of 1989. 
Dr. Ashok Agarwal and P.D. Sharma for the Appellant. 
K. Lahiri, P.P. Singh and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated December 22, 
1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in 
0.A. No. 1796 of 1989. 
We had issued notice to the respondents to show to this Court whether 
the consideration for promotion was on merit and ability or seniority-cum-
merit and what was the principle that was followed in grading the Officers by 
491 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] I S.C.R. 
the D.P.C. Pursuant to the said notice, learned counsel for the Union of India 
has brought to our notice the instructions issued by the Government of India 
and was in vogue prior to May 12, 1988. The Administrative Instructions 
contained in Memorandum of the Government dated 17th May, 1957 which 
was approved by this Court in Union ~f India Etc. v. Majji Jangamayya Etc., 
[ 1977] 2 SCR 28. This Court had accepted the criteria laid down in those 
instructions which were as under: 
"I. Greater emphasis should be laid on merit as a criterion. 
2. The Departmental Promotion Committee should first decide the 
field of choice, namely, the number of eligible officers awaiting 
promotion who should be considered for inclusion in the selection list. 
An officer of outstanding merit may be included in the list even if he 
is outside the normal field of choice. 
3. The field of choice wherever possible should extend to 5 to 6 times 
the numoer of vacancies expected. 
4. From among such officers those who are considered unfit for 
promotion should be excluded and the remaining should be classified 
es 'outstanding' 'very good' and 'good' on the basis of merit as 
determined by their respective records of service. The selection list 
should then be prepared by placing the names of the order of these 
three categories without disturbing the seniority inter se within each 
category. 
5. Promotions should strictly be made from such selection list in the 
order in which the names are finally arranged. The selection list 
should be periodically reviewed removing from the list names of 
persons who have been promoted, and including fresh names." 
On consideration of the above instructions, this Court had held thus: 
"The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be 
governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted 
by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post 
of Sub-Registrar, Grade II will be according to the new rules on the 
zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and, therefore, there was 
no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling 
the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not 
•
NUTAN ARVIND (SMT.) v. VO.I. 
493 
the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the 
A 
amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new 
rules." 
It is thus the settled law that prior to May 1988 grading used to be done 
as per Board's instructions and, therefore, the field of choice was done strictly 
on the basis of the seniority. Grading is now being done according to the 
confidential reports on the basis of principle of 'outstanding', 'very good', 
good' etc. etc. it is stated by the Tribunal in paragraph 14 at page l:i that it· 
had perused the DPC proceedings placed before it and observed

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