UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus B. ANNATHURAI & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 20-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 825 
---"I 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
V. 
B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 
Civil Appeal Nos.1128-1129 of 2009 
FEBRUARY· 20, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Service law: Promotion - Department of Space -
.. 
Scientist/Technical Assistant - Merit based promotion -
Elaborate procedure for assessing suitability followed for long 
time by the Department - On facts, candidates for promotion t 
absenting in almost all selection processes inspite of several 
opportunities - Not promoted - OA seeking direction to 
employer to evolve a new procedure for recommendations .of 
DPC - OA allowed and upheld by High Court - Justification of 
- Held: Not justified - In matter of promotion of Scientists/ D 
Engineers working in area like Space, merit is prime 
consideration - Having taken unilateral decision of not 
appearing in interview, candidates cannot seek to take 
advantage of their own wrong - Direction issued by Tribunal 
upheld by High Court to evolve a new procedure for E 
recommendations of DPC was unwarranted and is set aside. 
Respondent no.1 was working as technical Assistant 
··~ 
and respondent no.2 was working as Scientist Engineer 
'SC' in appellant organization i.e. LPSC, which was one 
of the five centres of ISRO under DOS. They were F 
considered by the Department Promotion Committee 
(DPC) for promotional post. However their case was 
deferred. After one year they were called again for 
interview. But they did not appear. Both the respondents 
filed-separate OA before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed G 
"' 
reconstitution of DPC by including a member of SC/ST 
) 
community as prayed for by the respondents, which was 
duly complied with. Both the respondents were called for 
interview but they did not attend, in spite of several 
825 
H 
, 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
e>pportunities. Although they a·ppea:re~ before the 
Selection Committee but they ref~s~d to answer 'any of 
the questions put to them by DPC. According.ly they were 
not recommended for« prornoti()'n.. 
· 
· 
The OAs were disposed of by the Tribunal directing 
B the appellants to evolve a proper format for recording the 
minutes .of DPC taking into account the various 
requirements and then to hold a review DPC retro-
spectively. 
c 
Aggrieved appellants filed writ petitions before the 
High Court, which were dismissed. Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum 
0 
dated 9.11.1998, makes it clear that the directions 
contained therein are not applicable to the department of 
Space as in the case of Department of Space and Atomic 
Energy and DRDO. It was stated therein that the 
recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission to make 
modified Flexible Complementing Scheme of promotion 
E for Group 'A' Scientists for all the Departments of the 
Central Government without any special dispensation for 
any individu.al department, was not accepted by the 
Government and the merit based promotion existing in 
these Departments was allowed to continue. The said 
F stipulation in the office memorandum was overlooked by 
the Tribunal and the High Court. [Para 16] [835-E] 
2. A perusal of the statement showing review of the 
cases of the respondents by the DPC, indicate that both 
G the respondents absented themselves in almost all the 
selection processes before the DPC. The statements 
clearly indicate that although several opportunities were 
granted to the respondents but they chose not to appear 
in the interviews held for the purpose of considering their 
H cases for promotion whereas before the court, they 
' 
', ,,· ·. 
UNION OF INDIA & 0RS. V.: B: ANNATHURAI & "ANR.- 827 
---~ 
argueq for their prom.otion with retrospective effect. If the A 
responde{lts despite b~ing given oppodunity tq ~·ppea.r 
.in the selection chose. n.ot to app~ar. in the ·~elec~ion' and 
stayed away from it they cannot seek "tor direction from 
the court ,for their. promotion without appearing in the 
interview from a retrospective date. The reason for such B 
non-appearance in the interview.when called for selection 
and also for not answering questions in the selection when 
they appeared was not given by the respondents. In any 
case such action on their part was at the peril of their own 
service career and also definitely detrimental to their c 
interest. Having taken such a vital unilateral decision they 
now cannot seek to take advantage of their own wrong. 
[Par

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