LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SRIRAM VERMA AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
v.
SRIRAM VERMA AND ANR
OCTOBER 29, 1996
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARJPOORNAN, JJ.]
8
Service Law :
Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954-Rule 28-B-Clauses
{I J and [b J of Suh Rule [11 ]-Promotion-Seniority-cum-merit basis-
Junior Promoted-No reasons recorded by D.P.C.-Held-Notobligatory- C
Promotion based on merit-Selecting authorities to follow the method of
grading all the candidates appearing before them-Suggestion given.
The appellant state promoted thirteen officers, nine on the basis
of seniority and merit and four on the basis of merit. The respondent D
challenged the promotion order before the Appellate Tribunal
complaining that his junior has been promoted. Tribunal allowed
the appeal. On appeal before the High Court. it was observed that
D.P.C. must indicate in the proceeding the reason for with-holding
promotion to a candidate so that Court can see what appealed to the
mind of D.P.C. for not giving promotion. Against the order of the E
High Court this appeal has been preferred.
The appellant State contended that it was obligatory upon the
D.P.C. to record reasons for not selecting an officer unless the rules
expressly provide.
The. respondent contended that when a senior is ignored and .
junior is selected it is obligatory upon D.P.C. to record reasons because
the selection is liable to he challenged in court of law.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
G
HELD : 1.1. When the promotion is made by the Departmental
Promotion Committee it is difficult to say either that the D.P.C. should
record reasons for not selecting a senior or at least the record should
indicate some reason. lt is one thing to say that such a course is fair
and desirable, it is altogether different to say that such a course is H
35
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A obligatory or necessary in all cases, in the latter event the selection
made are liable to be set aside for not complying with the said
requirement. But having regard to the nature of function ofselection-
and taking into consideration the fact that the only right of the
government servant is a right to be considered and not a right to
promotion, it will not be possible to infer the requirement of recording
B reasons in all situations. 142-F, 43-AI
Saraf Kumar Das v. Vishwajit Patnaik, 119951 Suppl. 1 SCC 434,
relied on.
State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, AIR (1996) SC 1328, Union
C of India v. E.G. Nambudri, [199113 SCC 38 and Union of India v. NP.
Dhamania, 119951 Suppl. 1 SCC I, relied on.
1.2. The procedure adopted by the selecting body should be fair
and should lend credence to the process. It should be such as to inspire
confidence in all concerned within practicable limits. It would be a
D wholesome step for the Govt. of Rajasthan, for that matter all
Governments, to provide either by amendment of Rules or by general
instructions that in the matter of promotion on the basis of merit
cum seniorHy the selecting authority should follow the method of
granting all the candidates appearing before them. 143-BC)
E
R.S. Das v. Union of India, 119861 Supp. SCC 617; Union Public
F
Service Commission v. Hiany Lal Dev and others, [19881 2 SCC 242;
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Services v. Dr. K. Kalyana
Raman and other, J19921 Supp 2 SCC 481; Major General JPS Diwan v.
Union of India and others, [19951 3 SCC 383; Bhagat Raja v. Union of
India and others, AIR (1967) SC 1606 CB referred to.
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13352 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.94 of the Rajasthan High
G Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 3268 of 1994.
K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh and Ms. Kusum for the Appellant.
Sushil Kr. Jain and A.P. Dhamija for the Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
STATEOFRAJ.v. S. VER,V!A[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.]
37
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY. J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the A
parties.
The respondent, Sriram Verma, is an officer belonging to the Rajasthan
Administrative Service. By an order dated March 24, 1991, thirteen officers
were "selected and appointed in senior pay-scale .... subject to review and
revision for the year 1990-91 as prescribed in the separate list mentioned B
in Rule 28(B)(b)" of Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954.
Thirteen officers selected and appointed under the said order were
mentioned under two categories separately. Nine officers were mentioned
under the heExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.