UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 07-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN 
JANUARY 7, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Sealed cover procedure-When to be adopted-Held, if on Jhe date on 
C which name of a person is considered by Departmental Promotion Committee 
D 
E 
F 
for promotion, such person is neither under suspension nor any departmental 
proceedings. have been initiated against him and if he is found meritorious 
and suitable, his name has to be brought on the select list and ''sealed 
cover" procedure cannot be adopted. 
Union of India and Ors. v. K.B. Jankiraman & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 109, 
relied on. 
New Bank of India v. N.P. Seghal & Anr., JT (1991) 1SC498, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4266of1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.91 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 927of1991. 
Harish Chandra, (C.V. Subba Rao) (NP) for the Appellants. 
Surya Kant for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Respondent was appointed to the post of 
G Obstetrician and Gynaecologist on 30th July, 1979. She was co~sidered by the 
Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Specialist Gr. 
II, (Senior Scale) in non-teaching Specialist Sub-Cadre on 8th of March 1989, 
but the proceedings of the Selection Committee were placed in the sealed 
'fl 
cover. On 16th of April 1991, respondent was placed under suspension which 
H was followed by a charge sheet issued to her on 8th of May, 1991. 
28 
--
I 
U.O.l. v. DR. SUDHA SALHAN 
29 
On 18th of April 1991, the respondent filed an Original Application A 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, praying 
for the following reliefs: 
"(a) to direct the respondents open the sealed cover pertaining to the 
promotion of the applicant to Specialist Grade-II (Senior scale officers 
in non-teaching specialist sub-cadre in pursuance of the B 
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) 
which met on 8.3.1989; 
(b) to direct the respondents that the applicant be promoted 
retrospectively from the date of her immediate junior has been promoted 
and to pay arrears of salary and allowances, if the DPC has C 
recomm.ended in her favour; 
( c) to direct the respondents to give her all consequential benefits like 
seniority, fixation of pay etc.; 
The Tribunal by its impugned judgment allowed the Original D 
Application and directed as under: 
"In the result, therefore, we allow the 0.A and direct the respondents 
to open the sealed cover pertaining to promotion of the applicant to 
specialist Grade-II (Senior Scale officers in non-teaching specialist 
sub-cadre) in pursuance o.f the recommendations of the DPC' which E 
met on 8.3.1989. Further in case the recommendation of the DPC is in 
her favour, we direct, the respondents that the appellant be promoted 
retrospectively from the date of her immediate junior had been promoted 
and pay the salary and allowances to her. We further direct that she 
is entitled to consequential benefits, like seniority and fixation of pay. F 
This may be done within a period of two months from the dated of 
receipt of a copy of this order". 
The Union of India is in appeal before us. 
The Tribunal has found it as a fact that on the date on which the 
Departmental Promotion Committee met to assess the case of the petitioner, G 
she was neither under suspension nor was nay charge sheet issued to her. 
The Tribunal, consequently, replying upon its own Full Bench decision as 
also a decision of this Court in New Bank of India v. N.P. Seghal & Anr., JT. 
(1991) I SC 498, allowed the Original Application and issued the directions 
noted above. 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] I S.C.R. 
A 
The question, however, stands concluded by a Three Judge decision of 
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.B.Jankiraman & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 
I 09, in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement 
with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on 
which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion 
Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under 
B suspension nor has ariy departmental proceedings been initiated against him, 
his n~me, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the 
select list and the "s.ealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The 
recommendation of the Dep

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