UNION OF INDIA versus N.P. DHAMANIA,

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 20-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S. MOHAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
N.P. DHAMANIA, ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 20, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, J.S. VERMA ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law-Promotion-Recommendations of Departmental promo-
tion Committee-Advisory in nature, not binding on appointing authority-Ap-
pointing authority can differ from recommendations of Departmental 
C Promotion C(>mmittee in public interest-Reasons must be given for so dif-
fering-Reasans to be recorded-Reasons recorded not required to be com-
municated to officer concemea. 
The respondent joined the Post and Telegraphs Department in India 
D Telecommunication Service on the basis of All India Selection held by 
Union Public Service Commission. He was initially appointed as Assistant 
Divisional Engineer, Telegraph. He was promoted to Junior Administra-
tive Grade. In 1985 the Departmental Promotion Committee prepared year 
wise select panels of 59 officers for officiating promotion to the Senior 
Administrative Grade Level II of the ITS Group 'A'. The respondent 
E retained bis ~riginal seniority at serial no. 13 in the Junior Administrative 
Grade for empanelment of the Senior Administrative Grade. The Panel 
was approved by the concerned Minister in toto. It was forwarded to the 
Department of Personnel for obtaining the approval of the Appointments 
Committee of the Cabinet. The Committee on a perusal of the records 
F 
directed that the panel should be returned to the UPSC for more "rigorous 
review''. The UPSC informed that the penal bad been prepared strictly in 
. accordance With the Instructions issned by the Department of Personnel 
and there wi1s no scope for the review. The, panel was again approved by 
the concerned Minister and the same was resubmitted to the Appoint-
ments Committee. The Committee approved a panel of 54 officers for 
G Appointment to the Senior Administrative Grade 'A' Level Post of the ITS. 
The remaining five out of the select panel of 59 officers including the 
respondent were dropped. It was this exclusion which was challenged 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
H 
The 1\'ibunal Held that the consultation with UPSC under Article 
628 
U.0.1. v. N.P. DHAMANIA 
629 
320(3) of the Constitution of India was direciory and not mandatory. It A 
was held that it was incumbent on the Government to give reasons for 
excluding the respondents in the select panels prepared by the UPSC. On 
the basis, the contention of Union of India that the appointing authority 
was competent to ignore the recommendations of the UPSC without as-
signing any reason whatsoever and without showing that it was doing so 
in public interest was negatived. It was declared that the petitioners shall 
be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. the date the officer immediately 
junior to him was promoted. 
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal, and the 
questions that arose for consideration were: 
(i) whether it is open to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet 
to differ from the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee; and 
(ii) Whether reasons must be given for so differing. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The recommendations of the DPC are advisory in 
nature. Such recommendations of the DPC are not binding on the Appoint-
B 
c 
D 
ing Authority. It is open to the appointing authority to differ from the E 
recommendations in public interest. [636-F] 
1.2. Notwithstanding the fact that it is open to Appointments Commit-
tee which alone is the Appointing Authority and not the Minister concerned, 
to differ from the recommendations of the DPC, it must give reasons for so_ 
differing to ward oil any attack of arbitrariness. Those reasons will have to 
be recorded in the file. In the instant case no reasons have been recorded for 
differing from the recommendations of the DPC. [636-G] 
F 
1.3. There is no need to communicate the reasons recorded to the 
officer concerned. Wberi challenged it is always open to the authority G 
concerned to produce the necessary records before the court. [637-B] 
1.4. The Tribunal had exceeded in its jurisdiction in the grant of 
'deemed promotion' to the respondent. this court is unable to support the 
finding merely because the Appointments Committee required the UPSC 
to adopt a more rigorous review of the select list, it would be ·an exercise H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A in futility to make a reference back and seek further consultation with the 
UPSC i

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