STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SRIKANT CHAPHEKAR

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 02-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
SRIKANT CHAPHEKAR 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Promotiolt-£Jepartmental Promotion Committee-cAnnual confiden-
tial reports-Evaluation of-Supersession of employee based on-Partial ex-
C 
pungtion of remarks latel"-Subsequent promotion-dletrospec.tive claim-
State Administrative Tribunal-Directing promotion retrospectively-Validity 
of-Courts to direct reconsideration of case only. 
The respondent, an Assistant Dlre<tor in the Town & Country 
Planning Office of the appellant State, was superseded by the Departmen- D 
tal Promotion Committee on the basis of adverse annual confidential 
reports which were partially expunged later. The respondent was sub-
sequently promoted. He filed application before the State Administrative 
Tribunal claiming promotion from the date of bis supersession. 
The Tribunal allowed the application holding that the remarks left 
unexpunged could not be sole basis to deny pr.omotion. It directed the 
State to treat the respondent to have been promoted from. a day earlier 
than bis junior was promoted. The State filed the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. It is not the function of the Tribunal to assess the service 
record of a Government servant and order bis promotion on that basis. It 
Is for the DPC to evaluate the same and make re<ommendatlons based on 
such evaluation. [pp. 347 G.H; 348-A] 
2. In a case where the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that 
a person was not considered for promotion or the consideration was 
Illegal then the only direction which can be given Is to reconsider bis case 
In accordance with law. It was not within the competence of the Tribunal 
E 
F 
G 
to have ordered deemed promotion of the respondent. [p. 348 A-BJ 
H 
345 
\ 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORT'.:>, ,992] Sl'PP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
3. This is not a fit case where even a direction to consider the 
respondent for promotion from the year 1981 can be given. The adverse 
reports were expunged on October 11, 1982. The only representation made 
by him was in the year 1984. Thereafter, the respondent kept quiet till 
November, 1991 when be approached the Tribunal. It would not be in the 
B interest of justice to issue any such direction after a period of more than 
a decade. [p. 348 B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3507 of 
1992. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.92 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal Indore Bench in Original Application No.2854 of 
1991. 
Rajindra Singhvi and S.K Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
D 
S.S.Ray, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. 
E 
Srikant Chaphekar, Assistant Director, Town and Country Plauning 
Office, Madhya Pradesh was considered alongwith other Assistant Direc-
tors by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on March 18, 1981 
for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and was not found fit for 
promotion on the basis of his service record. It is not disputed that a person 
junior to him was promoted. Chaphekar was, however, promoted to the 
F 
post of Deputy Director on January 24, 1986. He filed an application before 
the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in November 1991 seeking 
promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 when a 
person junior to him • ·as promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated 
February 21, 1992 allowed the application directing the State of Madhya 
G Pradesh to promote him to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 
1981 and to consider him for further promotion to the post of Joint 
Director from the date when the person junior to him was promoted. This 
appeal by way of special leave is by the State of Madhya Pradesh against 
the order of the Tribunal. 
H 
It is not disputed that the DPC superseded the respondent on March 
STATE OF M.P. v. SRIKANT [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
347 
18, 1981 on the basis of adverse reports in his service record for the years A 
1977-78 and 1978-79. His representation against the adverse reports was 
accepted on October 11, 1982 and the remarks for the year 1978-79 were 
completely expungned whereas for the year 1977-78 were partially ex-
punged. On May, 8, 1984 he submitted a representation to the Government 
requesting that he be considered for the post of Deputy Director as the B 
adverse remarks from his service record stood expugned. There is not

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