UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus S. RAVICHANDRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 11-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 600 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
S. RAVICHANDRAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 429 of2017) 
AUGUST 11,2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, PRAFULLA C. PANT 
AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.I 
Service law: 
C 
Conditions of service - Cadre - Review of - Propriety -
Respondents working in ministerial cadre of Border Security Force 
(BSF) - Appellant by letter dtd. 28.8.2000 sanctioned abolition of 
10% of promotion quota for ministerial cadre to the posts of Asst. 
Commandant and for creation of 26 posts of Asst. Commandant 
and 8 posts of Deputy Commandant vide letter dtd. 31.08.2000 -
D However, though the promotion quota meant for ministerial cadre 
was abolished, but no benefit was given in terms of letter dtd. 
31.8.2000 - Jn the meantime, in view of cadre review of BSF. 
appellant by sanction letter dtd. 28.11.2003 created 67 posts of 
Asst. Commandant for ministerial cadre - However, no post of 
E Deputy Commandant was created - Writ petition by respondents 
contending that appellant cannot be permitted to only partially 
implement the decision dtd. 28.08.2000131.08.2000 as the promotion 
quota was deleted but no benefit was provided to them and further 
that the subject matters of letters dtd. 28.8.2000131.08.2000 and 
28.11.2003 were totally different and they operate in different fields 
F - Writ petition, allowed - Plea of appellants that order(s) dtd. 
28.08.2000131.08.2000 stood superseded by the cadre review 
conveyed by letter dtd. 28.ll.20C3 - On appeal, held: Decision 
dtd. 28.08.2000131.08.2000 was superseded by the cadre review 
which took place on 28.11.2003 - Though. subject matters of letters 
G dtd. 31.08.2000 and 28.11.2003 are slightly different but letter dtd. 
28.11.2003 deals with restructuring of all posts from Constable to 
DIG including the posts meant for ministerial cadre and was issued 
in supersession of all orders on the subject concerned - No legal 
infirmity in letter dtd. 28.11.2003 - Judgment of High Court set 
aside - Border Security Force (Assistant Commandant) Recruitment 
H Rules, 1985 - BSF (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2001. 
600 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. RAVICHANDRAN & ORS. 
601 
Promotion - Avenues of - Interference by courts - Held: It is 
A 
for the employer to decide how many avenues of promotion to give 
to which branch - BSF is mainly a combat force and it is for the 
employer to decide to which level the ministerial staff should be 
promoted - Court cannot by its decision change the opinion of expert 
bodies. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 After perusing the record, it is clear that the 
decision dated 28.08.2000/31.08.2000 was superseded by the 
cadre review which took place on 28.11.2003. It may be true C 
that the subject matters of the two communications dated 
31.08.2000 and 28.11.2003 were slightly different but the subject 
matter of the letter dated 28.11.2003 encompassed the entire 
supervisory and support infrastructure of BSF which included the 
ministerial cadre and was issued in supersession of all orders on 
the aforesaid subject matter. The argument of the respondents D 
that since the subject headings of the two letters were different 
they operated in different fields, is without merit. The 
communication dated 28.11.2003 dealt with restructuring of all 
.posts from Constable to DIG including the posts meant for the 
ministerial cadre. It may be true, as pointed out by the private 
E 
respondents, that earlier they were entitled to promotion till 
higher levels and now they will be stuck at the levels of Assistant 
Commandant but that is a matter in which the court cannot 
interfere unless the decision of the employer is totally arbitrary 
or perverse. It is not as if the ministerial cadre has no avenues 
of promotion. They are normally recruited as clerk (Head 
F 
Constable) and some at the level of inspector. They all have 
avenues of promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant. It is 
for the employer to decide how many avenues of promotion to 
give to which branch. The BSF is mainly a combat force and it is 
for the employer to decide to which level the ministerial staff G 
should be promoted. It is for the authorities to carry out the 
cadre review and decide whether the ministerial employees 
working on the ministerial side should be given more avenues of 
promotion. The court cannot by its decision change the opinion 
of expert bodies. [Para 11] [605-C-GJ 
H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 Further
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.