UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus GOPAL MEENA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1106 · Decided: 10-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
GOPAL MEENA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010)
AUGUST 10, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion – Special drive for filling up backlog
vacancies vis-à-vis regular promotion – Distinction between ad hoc
promotions and regular promotions – Held: Distinction between a
special drive for filling up backlog vacancies and regular promotion
to candidates both from the reserved and the unreserved categories,
is too obvious – While filling up vacancies by way of promotion on
regular basis, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is
constituted and the profile of the candidates coming within the zone
of consideration is prepared – But in a special drive for filling up
the backlog vacancies meant for reserved category candidates, such
an exercise become redundant – This is because all candidates who
will be considered for promotion, in a special drive, will invariably
belong to the same reserved category, as otherwise it will cease to
be a special drive – Similarly, the exercise undertaken for filling up
vacancies on ad hoc basis, stands on a different footing from the
exercise undertaken for the grant of regular promotions – In the
present case, there is no parity between backlog vacancies covered
in Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2004 and the regular promotion
covered in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 and/or 6.1.2006
– Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have completely
missed the issue involved in the subsequent applications filed by
the candidates – Tribunal and the High Court missed the distinction
between ad hoc promotions and the regular promotions to be made
through DPC – High Court as well as the Tribunal fell into error on
two aspects- they did not address the issue whether there was a
special recruitment drive for filling up of backlog vacancies and
whether there was a failure to consider the case of the respondents;
and they applied the yardstick meant for ad hoc promotions to the
case of regular promotions, though the case of the candidates was
for unfilled backlog vacancies – This fundamental error of focus
resulted in the Tribunal and the High Court answering a question
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1106
1106
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
that did not arise – Orders of the High Courts are erroneous and
not sustainable in law – Consequently, the orders passed for regular
promotion by extending the zone of consideration do not arise, set
aside.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan
Sangh v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.(Civil
Appeal No.- 4026 of 1988); C.D. Bhatia & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No.- 14566 of 1995); Basudeo Anil & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors (Civil Appeal No.- 1194 of 1992);
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359:
2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.
Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane
Ltd.(2019) 4 SCC 376 : 2019 (3) SCR 41, R.K.
Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2
SCC 745 :1994(5) Suppl. SCR 654, Chebrolu Leela
Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
(2021) 11 SCC 401, Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) v. State of
Punjab & Ors. (1999) 7SCC 209 : 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR
521, S.B. Mathur & Ors. v. Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court & Ors. (1989) Supp (1) SCC 34 : 1988 (2) Suppl.
SCR 772; Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. v. V.
Chrysolite (2013) 16 SCC 702 : 2013 (12) SCR 421;
P. Sheshadri v. Union of India & Anr. (1995) 3 SCC
552 : 1995 (2) SCR 621 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 13
[2019] 3 SCR 41
referred to
Para 13
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 654
referred to
Para 17
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 521
referred to
Para 18
[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 772
referred to
Para 18
[2013] 12 SCR 421
referred to
Para 18
[1995] 2 SCR 621
referred to
Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3314
of 2010.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. GOPAL MEENA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2009 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.356 of 2008.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.5933 and 9436 of 2010.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Ms.
Ameyavikrama Tanvi, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Dr. M. P. Raju, Pushkar Anand,
K. K. Mishra, Dr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, R. K. Kapoor, Rajat Kapoor,
Kheyali Singh, R. K. Shukla, Dinesh S. Badiar, Arup Ratan Dutta
Ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.