UNION OF INDIA versus DR. P. RAIARAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 20-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
DR. P. RAIARAM AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 20, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Civil Services: 
Central Health Service Rules, 1982: 
Rule 4( 10) (ii) and (iii) scope of-Newly created floating/common posts 
in Super time grade-Selection post-Suitability of candidates-Meaning 
of-f'romotion to such post-Basis of-Not on mere seniority but on merit. 
A 
B 
c 
35 posts in super time grade of Central Health Services were sane· D 
tloned and proposals were sent to the Union Public Service Commis· 
slon(UPSC) for convening Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) 
meetings for selection of candidates. UPSC approved to amend Rule 4(6) 
of Central Health Service Rules of 1982. It also approved the method of 
recruitment, field of selection and principles of seniority to fill up the 35 E 
posts as one time measure in the absence of notified recruitment rules. 
The Commission also stipulated that these 35 posts were to be treated as 
common posts to be Included in the category of tloating posts for the 
teaching and non-teaching sub-cadres mentioned in Rule 4(6) of Central 
Health Services Rules, 1982. The eligibility condition stipulated was three 
years as Professor falling which 17 years of regular service in Group 'A'. F 
The communication of UPSC together with the eligibility list of Professors 
was circulated and errors/omissions/objections etc. were to be intimated 
to the Ministry within one month. 
The DPC met and selected candidates. Respondent No.1 was as· G 
signed 14th rank and Respondent No. 3 was assigned 4th rank. The 
selected candidates were promoted and appointed. 
Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal claiming that he was senior to respondent No. 3 and 
other doctors and since the promotion was only on the basis of seniority, H 
35 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A those doctors should not have been shown above him. The Tribunal gave 
a finding that promotion to the post of Director/Professor should be made 
on the basis of seniority and directed that Respondent No. 1 should be 
posted above tile respondents arrayed in the application before it. 
Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, Union of India preferred 
B the first of the two appeals. Respondent No. 3 in that appeal bas preferred 
the other appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants/respondent No. 3, it was contended that 
Rule 4(10)(ii) and (iii) as amended merely prescribed the procedure for 
C preparation of eligibility test; that the procedure has not been prescribed 
in any other Rule as the posts were created as floating posts; that the 
posts did not pertain to any particular super speciality or sub-cadre of 
Professor/Director and so the criteria for preparation of eligibility list bad 
to be prescribl!d for determining inter-se ranking between the sub-cadres; 
that merely because Rule 4(10)(iii) contained the word 'suitability' it did 
D not supersede, alter or amend the criteria for selection and that the word 
'suitability' ha.• to be understood in the light of the guidelines of DPC. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
E 
HELD : 1.1. If there is to be an assessment of merit, the principle of 
selection is involved. On the contrary, if it were merely a seniority-cum-fit-
ness there is no need to associate the Union Public Service Commission 
as pointed out in the guidelines. All these lead only to one. conclusion that 
these are selection posts. That is dealt with apart from Rule 4, sub-
rule(lO), clause (iii), and also under paragraph 6.1.2 of the guidelines 
F 
issued by the Government of India. According to the guidelines the 
Departmental Promotion Committee is to devise its own method and 
procedure for objective assessments of suitability of candidates. It is note· 
worthy in paragraph 6.3.1 that the procedure for the preparation of the 
panel for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee is 
G delineated. (51 C, DJ 
1.2. Pan1graph 7 of the guidelines deals with non-selection method 
and it dispenses with the requirement to make a comparative assessment 
of the records, In such a case what is required is to categorise the officers 
as fit or not y<:t fit for promotion on the basis of assessment of the record 
H of service. Therefore, the word "suitability" in Rule 4(10)(iii) having regard 
,. 
.. 
1 
•· 
U.0.l. v. P. RAJARAM 
37 
to the nature of the post and grade could only mean suitability for the A 
purposes of being selected 

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