UNION OF INDIA versus SMT. SADHANA KHANNA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
~ 
v. 
• 
SMT. SADHANA KHANNA 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Service Law-Promotion-Select List for promotion-Non 
c 
inclusion of senior candidates' name though qualified whereas names 
ofiunior candidates included-Challenge to-Held: Senior candidate 
was issued appointment letter after the eligibility date for promotion 
whereas junior candidates tt·ere issued prior to eligibility date-Hence, 
Department was at fault-Senior candidates ' name to be considered 
for promotion. 
D 
Aggrieved respondent filed application challenging the Select 
List for promotion to the post of Section Officer for year 1991, since 
; 
her name was not included in the Select List though she was qualified 
and the name of the officers junior to the respondent was included 
E in the select list and were promoted to the post of Section Officer. 
The Tribunal allowed the application. High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The respondent was offered appointment by letter 
dated 5. 7.1983 which was after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility 
was to be counted. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior 
to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 
1.7.1983. Hence, it was the Department which was to be blamed for 
G sending the letter offering appointment after 1.7.1983. Moreover, 
in view of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel 
and Trainingdated 18.3.1988and19.7.1989 the respondent was also 
to be considered, othenvise a very incongruous situation would arise 
~ 
... 
namely that the junior would be considered for promotion but the 
H 
senior would not. (Para 11] [744-G-H; 745-A-BJ 
742 
UNIONOFINDIAv. SMT. SADHANAKHANNA 
[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 
743 
-1 
R. Prabha Devi & Ors. v. Government of India Through Secretary, A 
Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors., 
(1988] 2 sec 233, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8208 of 
2001. 
B 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2000 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 1311 of2000. 
T.S. Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj, Sushma Suri and Manpreet Singh 
Doabia for the Appellant. 
c 
Rachna Gupta, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh and Amrit Singh for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against D 
the impugned judgn1ent of the Delhi High Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil 
Writ Petition No.1311 of2000. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central 
Secretariat Service on 13. 7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade 
Examination held in October, 1981. The respondent was allocated to the 
finance cadre comprising the Ministry of Finance. 
E 
4. After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of F 
Assistant, the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade 
of Section Officer on 24.7.1991. The respondent continues to work in 
this post till date. 
5. Select List (Seninrity quota) for promotion to the Section Officers G 
Grade for the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993. The respondent's 
name has not been included in this select list although the respondent was 
qualified to be included in the select list. Officers junior to the respondent 
who have secured lower rank in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981 
have been included in the select list for Section Officers 1991. 
H 
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
6. The seniority list of Assistants Grade had been issued on 1st 
October, 1990. In this list the respondent ranks at S.N.29 whereas other 
officers of the same grade at S.Nos.30, 32, 34, 25 and so on who are 
junior to the respondent in this seniority list have superseded the 
respondent and promqted as Section Officer on the basis of the Sele~t 
B List of 1991. Promotion to the post of section officers from the grade of 
Assistant to the grade of Section Officers (seniority quota) is on non-
selection basis, based only on seniority. 
7. The grievance of the respondent was that her juniors were included 
C in the select list but her name was not so included. Hence, she filed an 
O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
8. Jn the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein 
(respondent before the Tribunal) alleged that the respondent was not 
e

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