LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 1 S.C.R. 948 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2010) JANUARY 21, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Service Law - Promotion - From the post of Junior C Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer - Criteria for drawing the select list for promotion - Order of passing departmental qualifying examination or the relevant recruitment order of entry - This Court by order dated 08.04.1986 held that order of passing departmental qualifying D examination should be the criteria for drawing the select list - Subsequently, this Court in *Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association case held that the order of recruitment/order of entry should be the criteria for promotion - Thereafter, in **Union of India v. E Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association this Court held that the persons who had already got the benefit by virtue of the judgments in their favour, would not suffer and their promotion already made would not be interfered with - Reiteration of the said position F - Meanwhile pursuant to order dated 08.04.1986, claims of the respondents 1 to 511 along with thousands of similarly situated Junior Engineers dealt with by the appellant-institution - 17 Lists drawn and their seniority determined in the year 1993 - Their rights upheld by the tribunal and by the G impugned orders of the various High Courts - However, in the year 2000, the appellant reversed the seniority of all those who were covered by the Lists drawn in the year 1993 - Different set of officers favoured with seniority and promotions - Tribunal interfering with the action of the appellant - Said H 948 UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL 949 order upheld by the High Courts - Interference with - Held: A Not called for - Appellant not justified in reversing the seniority and subsequent promotions of all those who were covered by the 17 Lists drawn in the year 1993 - Since several thousand employees are involved and in order to balance the rights of both the groups, an independent Expert Committee is 8 constituted which would be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, with the assistance of a retired Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal based on the principles laid down in the various judgments. *Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes C & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association (1997) 10 SCC 226; **Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association 2000 (3) SCR 618: (2000) 9 SCC 71; Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. 2006 (6) Suppl. D SCR 694: (2006) 8 SCC 662; Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications 2008 (5) SCR 442: (2008) 11 SCC 579 - referred to. Case Law Reference: (1997) 10 sec 226 Referred to 2000 (3) SCR 618 Referred to 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 694 Referred to 2008 (5) SCR 442 Referred to Para 2, 3, 13, 14, 17 Para 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 Para 5, 6, 7, 14, 20 Para 6, 7, 14, 20 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2010. E F G From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2008 of the H 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No. 13 of 2007. WITH C. A. Nos. 5008, 8929-8945 of 2012, 6769, 9348 of 2013, B 1454, 1657, 1456, 1457-1459, 1460-1462 & 1453 of 2015 R. 0. Agrawala, Nidhesh Gupta, V. Giri, J. S. Attri, A. K. Sanghi, C. S. Rajan, Ambar Qamaruddin, Gaurang Kanth, Mohit Kumar Shah, Pawan Kumar, Eshita Baruah, Rajshekhar Rao, c Liz Mathew, Gauri Puri, Sanjay Ghosh, Gautam Narayan, Sabarish Subramanian, C. B. Gururaj (for Legion of Lawyers), Sunita Sharma, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, D. S. Mahra, Naresh Kaushik, Lalitha Kaushik, A. Raghunath, Rani Chhabra, Priyanka Sony, Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Dr. Sushil 0 Balwada, Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyanka Sony, Manish Kumar, Amit Kumar, Rakesh K. Sharma, R. K. Kapoor, Rekha Giri, Anis Ahmed Khan for the appearing parties. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 1. We . . shall deal with the judgment impugned in the Civil Appeal Nos. 8929-8945 of 2012 for the purpose of referring to the facts as well as the date of judgments of this Court which were either followed or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.