U.0.I. versus S.P. NAYYAR

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 116 
U.0.1. 
v. 
S.P.NAYYAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 5852 o,f 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of -
Held: High Court under Art. 226 cannot sit in appeal over the 
assessment made by DPC -
If the assessment made by 
DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record 
D has not been considered by DPC, it is always open to High 
Court under Art. 226 to remit the matter back to DPC for 
recommendation, but in the absence of Character Rolls of 
other candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion, it 
is not open to High Court to assess the merit of one individual 
E who approaches it and direct to promote such person to higher 
post. 
Administrative Law: 
Bias - Held: Bias and malafide acts can be adjudged 
F only on the basis of evidence - Assessment of Character Roll 
by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as 
'Good' cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was 
biased against the person whose CR is assessed - In the 
G instant case, merely because the Accepting Officer assessed 
the ACR of respondent as 'Good' as against assessment of 
'Very Good' made by initiating Officer, it cannot be said that 
he was biase,d against respondent. 
Service Law: 
H 
116 
U.0.1. v. S.P. NAYYAR 
117 
Promotion - Border Security Force - Promotion to post A 
of Additional DIG - Criterion - Merit-cum-seniority - DPC 
having not found respondent fit, not recommended him for 
promotion - Plea of respondent that though Initiating Officer 
and Reviewing Officer rated him as "Very Good" for two years, 
Accepting Officer, ma/a fide, down-graded him to 'Good' - Writ 
B 
petition allowed by High Court - Held: Selection to the post 
of Addi. DIG is based on merit-cum-suitability which is to be 
adjudged on the basis of ACRs of different candidates -
The 
merit position can be adjudged by Selection Committee on 
appreciation of their Character Roll -
No ground has been 
C 
made out by respondent to show as to why the assessment 
made by DPC is not to be accepted -
High Court failed to 
notice the said fact and wrongly discarded the assessment 
made by D. P. C. -
Findings of the judgment passed by High 
Court cannot be upheld and the same is accordingly set aside 
D 
-
Guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committees 
and related matters issued under DOP& T OM dated 
10.4.1989 -
Para.1.2. 
The respondent, who was the Commandant in 
E 
Border Security Force and was considered for promotion 
to the post of Additional DIG, was not found fit by the DPC 
and, as such, was not recommended by it. The 
respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the decision of the DPC. He imputed this to 
F 
be mala fide acts of appellant no. 3, who as Accepting 
Officer, downgraded his twq CRs to 'Good' contrary to 
the grading as 'Very Good' given by the Initiating Officer 
and the Reviewing Officer. The High Court allowed the 
writ petition holding that the respondent was targeted and 
G 
wrongly superseded due to personal bias of his superior 
officer. The High Court directed the authorities to 
promote the respondent and, the consequential benefits 
to be paid accordingly. 
· 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court under Art. 226 of. the 
Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the 
assessment made by the DP.C. If the assessment made 
B by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or 
proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is 
always open to the High Court under Art. 226 of the 
Co.nstitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for 
recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the 
c merit on its own, on perusal of the service record of one 
or the other employee, and cannot direct to promote a 
person to the higher post, without giving a plausibre 
ground. [para 12 and 16] [123-H; 124-A-B; 125-B] 
0 
1.2. The selection to the post of Addi. DIG is based on 
merit-cum-suitability which is to be adjudged on the basis· 
of ACRs of different candidates. The merit position can be 
adjudged by the Selection Committee on appreciation of 
their Characte·r Roll. In absence of the Character roll of 
E other candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion, 
it is not open to the High Court to assess the merit of one 
individual who moves before the High Court, to give a· 
f

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