THE CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA AND ANR versus DR. K. SANTHAKUMARI

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 04-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA 
A 
AND SIDDHA AND ANR . 
.. 
v. 
DR. K. SANTHAKUMARI 
MAY 4, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
~ 
Service law 
Promotion-Selection post-Recruitment Rules providing promotion c 
on the basis of merit-cum-seniority-Effect of-Held, candidates not entitled 
.. 
to claim promotion only on the basis of their seniority . 
Practice and Procedure 
Counsel-Wrong concession made-Binding effect of 
D 
Respondent was working as Assistant Research Officer with the 
appellant institute. The Departmental Promotion Committee of appellant 
prepared a list of eligible candidates for being promoted as Research Officer. 
Respondent filed a writ petition challenging her placement in the said select 
list on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. Appellants in their counter- E 
affidavit filed before the High Court mistakenly admitted that the method Qf 
promotion for the post of Research Officer was seniority-cum-fitness though 
the relevant recruitment rules provide that the promotion should be made on 
""" 
the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Consequently, Single Judge of High Court 
allowed the writ petition holding that respondent was entitled to promotion F 
on the basis of her seniority. Appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal 
filed before the Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the post of Research 
Officer was a 'selection post' and as per the recruitment rules, 'selection 
post' was to be filled up on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. 
G 
On behalf of the respondent it was conten4ed that the promotion to the 
post of Research Officer was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness 
~ and a comparative assessment of merit was irrelevant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. 
519 
H 
A 
B 
c 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The post of Research Officer is a 'selection post' and the 
relevant recruitment rules provide that promotion to a 'selection post' is to 
be done on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority. Thus, respondent 
was not entitled to claim promotion to the post of Research Officer on the 
strength of her seniority alone. [521-E; 524-C] 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR (1967) SC 
1910; State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das, AIR (1966) SC 1547; Union of 
India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor, [1973) 6 SCC 836; B. V. Sivaiah v. K. ;J.ddanki 
Babu, (1998) 6 · SCC 720 and Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Gen .. Rajendra 
Singh Kadyan and Am:, (2000) 6 SCC 698, relied on. 
2. Admission or concession made inadvertently or under a mistaken 
impression of law by a counsel is not binding on his client and the same 
cannot enure to the benefit of any party. Thus, in the instant case even if the 
appellants had mistakenly contended in the High Court that the principle of 
seniority-cum-fitness was to be followed for promotion to the post of Research 
D Officer, the departmental rules clearly show that the promotion in respect 
of 'selection post' was to be made on the basis of inter-se merit of the eligible 
candidates. [524-A-C] 
Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan, AIR (1998) SC 1681, relied on. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No. 3595 of 
F 
2001. 
From the Judgment of Order dated 1.3.2000 of the Kerala High Court in 
W.A. No. 463 of 2000. 
T.C. Sharma and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellants. 
T.L.V Iyer, Ms. Malini Poduval and Ms. Lansinglu Rongmei for the 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. 
·The respondent herein was the Assistant Research Officer (Ayurveda) 
in the Indian Institute of Panchakarma, Cheruthuruthy, in Kerala. This Institute 
H is functioning under the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. 
C. C.FORRES. INAYUR. ANDSIDDHA v. DR. K. SANTHAKUMARI [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] .521 
The Departmental Promotion Committee prepared a panel of eligible candidates A 
,.,. 
for being promoted as Research Officers. The respondent alleged that she 
-r-
was included as SL No. 15 in the select list whereas her juniors were included 
as SL Nos. 1,9,11,12,13 and 14. The respondent contended that the promotion 
had to be effected on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness and therefore, the 
placing of respondent at SL No. 15 for being promoted, as Research Officer B 
was illegal. The respondent filed a Writ Petition no. 1036/96 before the High 
Court of Kerala. A counter af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.