UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus F.H.DUBASH

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 06-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-..... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
F.H.DUBASH 
FEBRUARY 6, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
l-c. 
Service Law-Promotion-Promotion of one officer-Officer at No. 2 in 
merit list claiming his promotion-Writ Petition-High Court holding that 
since there were two vacancies, officer at No. 2 also entitled to promotion- c 
On appeal, held: Order of High Court not justified as the same was without 
consideration of the norms of promotion-Regulations for Navy Part 111 
--'>-
(Statutory) Chapter I. 
In a Writ Petition filed by the respondent claiming promotion, High 
Court held that he was eligible for promotion as he was at serial No. 2 in the D 
merit list and two vacancies were available. Hence the present appeal. 
i-
_, 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1. There is nothing illegal in the procedure adopted. It was inter 
alia noted that while considering the matter on 24th August, 2004, two E 
additional vacancies of 2005 were taken into account keeping in view the 
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence in September, 2000 and five more 
"First Look officers" of next 18 months batch were included in the list for 
consideration in accordance with Naval Orders (Special) 4/1999 to ensure 
t 
equal distribution of promotion factor amongst batches. The Chief of Naval 
Staff is required to approve the Approach papers prepared by the Personnel F 
Branch of the Ministry of Defence. The paper laid down the procedure to be 
followed by the Board and to supply the information regarding the batches to 
be considered, number of officers to be selected and other policy decisions. 
The aforesaid procedure does not appear to have been departed from. 
[Para 12] (319-H; 320-A-B] G 
!,., 
- -~ 
2. High Court has lost sight of one relevant fact that if two vacancies 
/ ,, 
'( 
are to be considered for filling up by the appellant, then the zone of 
consideration is six officers as against zone of 4 officers taken into account 
for filling up one vacancy. If the zone of consideration is in respect of two 
315 
H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A vacancies, then two more officers from within the zone of consideration for 
filling up the vacancy are to be considered. [Para 10] [319-B-C] 
3. There appears to be no conflict between the Government guidelines 
dated 25.9.2000 and the policy of the equitable distribution of vacancies 
containing the Naval Order (Special) 4/99. The High Court seems to have 
B proceeded on the basis that when two vacancies were available on 18.6.2004, 
one vacancy should not have been released and the selection of the respondent 
was to be done automatically. This does not appear to be the correct approach 
to be adopted. The appellants have accepted that there is no conflict and the 
Navy Order (Special) 4/99 was to prevail. When all vacancies are made 
C available the llanel of officers for consideration has to be accordingly 
expanded. [Para 11] [319-F-G; E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 503 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.2.2006 of the High Court of 
D Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. No. 14467/2004. 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Anil 
Katiyar for the Appellants. 
Sanjay Kapur, Shubhra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur and Arti Singh for the 
E Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by 
F a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by 
the respondent and· holding that the respondent was eligible for promotion 
to the rank of Rear Admiral. The High Court was of the view that there were 
two vacancies available and, therefore, the respondent who was eligible and 
at serial No.2 in the merit list was denied promotion. The order of the High 
G Court is challenged on the ground that the High Court has completely lost 
sight of the requirements of Navy Order 4/99. It is the case of the appellants 
that only one vacancy was under consideration by the Promotion Board and, 
therefore, only the officer who was at the first rank was appointed. In case 
the vacancies are more, particular modalities are to be adopted and in the zone 
of consideration respondent was placed lower. The High Court was not 
H 
~ 
I 
f 
U.0.1. v. F.H. DU BASH [PASA YAT, J.] 
317 
justified in holding that merely because the respondent was ranked second A 
·--r 
in the merit list when the 

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