UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SANGRAM KESHARINAYAK

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
' 
v. 
"" ' 
SANG RAM KESHARI NAY AK 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Service Law-Promotion-Name of employee recommended for 
promotion-Due to pendency of vigilance case, promotion not given adopting 
t 
c Sealed Cover Procedure as per a Government Circular-Promotion given to 
junior of the employee-Initiation of departmental proceedings after the 
meeting of DPC and also after promotion of the junior-Central Administrative 
Tribunal and High Court allowing promotion to the employee-On appeal, 
held: As per the Circular, Sealed Cover Procedure could have been adopted 
only when disciplinary proceeding was pending-Since on the date when 
D meeting of DPC was convened, no disciplinary proceeding was pending 
against the employee, the employee could have been promoted-Promotion 
though not a fundamental right, the same cannot be curtailed unless provided 
so by valid rules-Constitution of India, I950-Article 309. 
~ 
E 
Name of respondent (employee of appellant-State) was recommended for 
promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPq. As a vigilance case 
was pending against him, DPC adopted Sealed Cover Procedure in terms of a 
Government Cirrnlar dated 21.10.1993. Departmental proceedings had not 
been initiated against him, after his name was recommended for promotion 
and also after his junior was promoted to the promotional post. 
F 
Respondent filed original application before Central Administrative 
'{ 
Tribunal praying for direction to the appellant-State to promote him to the 
post from the date when his junior was appointed. Application was allowed. In 
Writ Petition, Order of the Tribunal was upheld. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered 
for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within 
its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability 
H 
896 
1 
~ 
~ 
)• 
U.0.1. v. SANGRAM KESHARI NAY AK 
897 
or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of A 
the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable 
therefore. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for 
promotion. On the day on which, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry 
was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental 
proceeding should be initiated against him. (Para 11] (900-D] 
2. Terms and conditions of an employee working under the Central 
Government and governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to 
Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under a statute. The right to be 
promoted to a next higher post can, thus, be curtailed only by reason of valid 
rules. Such a rule again, however, cannot be construed in a manner so as to 
curtail the right of promotion more than what was contemplated by law. 
[Para 12] (900-E-FJ 
3. Whereas paragraph 6 of the Circular Letter dated 21.10.1993 
provides for a Sealed Cover Procedure to be adopted by the DPC, the same 
has to be taken recourse to only in the event circumstances mentioned in 
paragraph 2 thereof arise after the recommendation of the DPC. The 
recommendations of the DPC, therefore, can be refused to be given effect to 
only inter alia when one or the other conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of 
the said Circular stand satisfied which in the instant case would mean that 
as against the respondent a chargesheet had been issued or, in other words, 
a disciplinary proceeding was pending. Admittedly, a chargesheet was issued 
as against him only after the meeting of DPC was convened. Thus, there was 
no bar in promoting the respondent. No material was placed before the DPC 
to take recourse to the Sealed Cover Procedure. In fact, none existed at the 
material time. Paragraph 2 of the said Circular specifically refers to 
submission of chargesheet as the cut-off date when a Departmental Proceeding 
can be said to have been initiated. [Paras 13 and 14) [900-G-H; 901-A-B] 
Union of India and Ors. v. K. V. Janakiram and Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 109 
and Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, (2007) 5 SCALE 724, 
relied on. 
Union of India and Anr. v. R. S. Sharma, (2000] 4 SCC 394; Delhi 
Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana, (1993] 3 SCC 1996 and Union of 
India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993] 3 SCC 204, distinguished. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELL~ TE JURISDICTION: Civil Ap

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