STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. versus SURINDER KUMAR MOHLNDRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 07-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
SURlNDER KUMAR MOHlNDRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Promotion-To the post of Joint Director-Criteria for promotion-
C Merit with due regard to seniority-And completion of requisite length of 
service in feeder grade-Zone of consideration limited to five times the 
number of expected vacancies within a year-Question of promotion to 
said post considered on three different occasions-On first occasion employee 
did not come within zone of consideration-On second occasion came 
within zone of consideration bui did not complete prescribed length of 
D service in feeder grade-On third occasion he had superannuated-Held: 
In such circumstances, non-promotion of employee to post of Joint Director 
did not infringe Art. 16-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 16. 
The respondent was employed as Agriculture Inspector and was 
promoted to a Class I post. The Departmental Promotion Committee 
E (DPC) considered the cases for promotion to the post of Joint Director 
(Agriculture) but respondent's case was not considered as in 
accordance with the rules and on the basis of his seniority he did not 
come within the zone of consideration. The respondent filed an 
application before the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the 
F aforesaid decision of the DPC. The Tribunal directed th·e appellant to 
reconsider the case of promotion of the respondent with retrospective 
effect. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The question of promotion to the post of Joint 
Director was considered on three different occasions. The criteria for 
promotion was merit with due regard to seniority and completion of 
the prescribed length of service in the feeder grade. Zone of 
consideration was limited to five times the number of vacancies expected 
H within a year. [568 B-EI 
564 
STATE OF H.P. v. S.K. MOHINDRA [PA TTANAIK, J.] 
565 
1.2. On the first occasion, the respondent did not come within A 
the zone of consideration and, therefore, was not considered for 
promotion. On the second occasion the respondent came within the 
zone of consideration and his case was considered by the Departmental 
Promotion Committee but as the respondent did not have the 
prescribed length of service in the feeder grade he was not promoted. 
On the third occasion the respondent was no longer available as he B 
had already superannuated. In such circumstances, non-promotion 
of the respondent to the post of Joint Director did not infringe the 
constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. 
(568 A-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14222 of C 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.93 of the Himachal Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 333 of 1986. 
J.S. Attri for the Appellants. 
Himinder Lal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
D 
PA TT ANAIK, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against E 
the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By the 
impugned judgment the Tribunal called upon the State to consider 
promotion of respondent no. I to the post of Joint Director alongwith others 
as on 15.6.1979 and if is found suitable to give notional promotion to him 
by creating supernumerary post with ali consequential benefits without 
reverting the persons already promoted. 
F 
Admittedly, respondent no.I was employed as Agriculture Inspector 
on 19.5.1949 and he was promoted to a post in Class II on probation on 
13.9.1957. He was confirmed against the said post on 15.6.1966 and was 
promoted to Class I post on 22.1.1976. He had filed a representation G 
claiming his seniority taking his length of service from the continuous 
date of his appointment and that representation having been allowed on 
30.11.1973 bis seniority was re-fixed. Consequent upon refixation of his 
seniority by order dated 4.9.76 he was granted notional promotion to 
Class II with effect from 13.9.57 with all consequential benefits. The 
Departmental Promotion Committee by its report dated 21.4. 79 H 
566 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A recommended the case of respondent no. I for promotion to Class I with 
retrospective effect from 17 .12.1973 on the basis of his seniority below 
Shri S.S. Saini and aoove Shri V.P. Sobti. The Departmental Promotion 
Committee met on 15.6.79 to consider the case of promotion t

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