UNION OF INDIA Vs. N R BANERJEE
LAWS(SC)-1996-12-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on December 16,1996

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
N.R.BANERJEE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ANJU AZAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-270] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2006-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
K RAJARAJAN VS. TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION SALEM DIVISION 1 LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-728] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND NARAIN SINGH VS. U P SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE SELECTION BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-2001-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
BAKUL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
BHUMIDHAR KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
SABUJ RANJAN DEY VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2005-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA NATH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA NATH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. KL TANEJA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
BRIDLY FORD PASSAH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2005-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA BABOO SRIVASTAVA VS. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA KUMAR SAIKIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH AWASTHI VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY INDUSTRIAL DEPTT LK [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-355] [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; TAHSILDAR AND DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-767] [REFERRED]
GIRDHARY KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-3-89] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA VS. HARENDRA PRASAD GUPTA [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM KUMAR MAZUMDAR AND OTHERS VS. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
D VEERASINGAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-198] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD VS. SARNAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-33] [REFERRED]
ROOP KUMARI JOSHI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASAD SRIVASTAVA VS. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-9-235] [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2016-6-53] [REFERRED]
SAMIR BARAN DAS AND OTHERS VS. BONGAIGAON REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHILLQNG BENCH M LAITPHLANG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPAL SINGH SHISHODIYA VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SECONDARY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
P SIVANANDI VS. RAJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
K. K. GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
P. VENKATACHALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2024-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH SEHRAWAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-63] [REFERRED 4.]
P D JHARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-251] [REFERRED TO]
BALINDRA PRAN KAKATI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GARG VS. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-171] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. UDGATA VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(CA)-2012-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
JAIRAM N. KERKAR VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD VS. SARNAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1999-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
K. K. S. MIDDLE SCHOOL VS. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-1998-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
DR. M. LAITPHLANG AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2004-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
DESH BHUSHAN JAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAB BURAGOHAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
KANAN KUMAR PANDIT VS. COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(GAU)-2007-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAHABIR DIXIT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. PREMA GOVINDARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-228] [REFERRED TO]
NABA KISHORE LAHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2001-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
KHEM SINGH DEORA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA RAO U VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-168] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-326] [REFERRED]
V.HARISHNATH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
YIMI ANGU VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2009-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-138] [REFERRED TO]
ANAMI NARAYAN ROY VS. SUPRAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY INDIAN INHABITANT [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND NARAIN SINGH VS. U P SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES SELECTION BOARD ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
S DHNABIR SINGH VS. PROMOTEE ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSON [LAWS(GAU)-2000-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
MOLITATU VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
LOHIT BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2004-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA ROY [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA ROY [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
USHA SAINI VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR GENERAL RAKESH KUMAR LOOMBA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-6-12] [REFERRED]
KANUBHAI RAMSINGBHAI HATHILA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-1-323] [REFERRED TO]
B KUMARAVEL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-294] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD VS. SARNAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2000-4-51] [REFERRED]
SOMDUTT SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KARAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
NAOREM SARATCHANDRA SINGH VS. MANIPUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. REGISTRAR [LAWS(MAD)-2023-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
S.SENTHILKUMARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-476] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
K K GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAM VS. DISTRICT COLECTOR KARUR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-266] [REFERRED TO]
B N BAJPAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-1-111] [REFERRED]
B N BAJPAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-1-111] [REFERRED]
UJJWAL KANTI PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP KUMARI JOSHI & 20 ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA JAMES AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-564] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP HALDER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-89] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench made on August 14, 1996 in O.A. No. 219/95 and 237/96. The controversy involved relates to promotion to the post of Senior General Manager in the Indian Ordnance Factories under India Ordnance Factories Services Rules. The question for consideration is; as to when the vacancies in the above posts would arise The grade and scale of pay for the said post is Rs. 3700-8000/-. For the year 1994-95, panel of successful candidates was required to be prepared. According to the appellants, there were no clear vacancies as on April, 1994. Four members in the above grade were to retire in that year. Proposal for filling up the ensuing vacancies from Ordnance Factory Board was sent to the Ministry on December 22, 1993. The Ministry had communicated to the Union Public Service Commission its approval on February 8, 1994. A.C.Rs. of the eligible candidates were approved on August 16, 1994 and the incumbent members joined as members of the Board on August 22, 1994, September 3, 1994, October 6, 1994 and March 1, 1995. Consequently the D.P.C. met on March 15, 1995 for selection of Officers to fill up the four vacancies.
(3.)On this factual matrix, it is contended for the appellants that the crucial date for the D.P.C. meeting for selection should be April or May 1995 for selection of candidates to fill up the vacancies of the year 1994-95. The A.C.Rs. recorded of all the candidates falling within the zone of consideration and approved by the Government, as on March 31, 1994, are required to be looked into and merits adjudged. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing the Government to ignore the A.C.Rs. for the year 1994 and consideration of the candidates eligible by then up to March, 1993. The D.P.C. was to be constituted as on April 1, 1994. Resultantly, the directions were given in paragraphs 25 and 28 for consequential action. Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, contends that the view of the Tribunal is not correct in law. As per the procedure, preparation of the panel of candidates for consideration by the D.P.C. to fill up the clear vacancies as on April 1994 is necessary. A.C.Rs. are prepared on the basis of the performance during financial year which would be October 1 of the year. In this case, the A.C.Rs. of the incumbents are written on the financial year basis. It was approved by the Government on March 31, 1995. Therefore, the D.P.C. could not have got approved A.C.Rs. before that date, namely, as held by the Tribunal on March 19, 1993. The direction, therefore, that the D.P.C. in its proceedings should take into consideration A.C.Rs. of all the eligible candidates as on April, 1993 is incorrect. Though, prima facie, we are impressed with the arguments of Shri Altaf Ahmed, on deeper probe and on going through the procedure laid by the Ministry of Personnel and Training, we find no force in the contention. Preparation of the action Plan for consideration by the D.P.C. of the respective claims of the officers within the Zone and thereafter for setting in motion the preparation of panel on yearwise basis, is elaborately mentioned. In case of their failure to do so, what further procedure is required to be followed is also indicated in the rules. It thereby manifests the intention of the rule-maker that the appellant-Government should estimate the anticipated vacancies, regular vacancies and also vacancies arising thereafter due to various contingencies and it should also get the A.C.Rs. prepared and approved. It is also made clear that the D.P.C. should sit on regular basis to consider the cases of the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration. The object is clear that the Government should keep the panel ready in advance so that the vacancies arising soon thereafter may be filled up from amongst the approved candidates whose names appear in the panel. In that behalf, it is seen that in the guidelines issued by the Government in Part I of Clause (49) dealing with Functions and Composition of Departmental Promotion Committee etc. necessary guidelines have been enumerated. It envisages that a post is filled up by promotion where the Recruitment Rules so provide. In making promotions, it should be ensured that suitability of the candidates for promotion is considered in an objective and impartial manner. In other words, the consideration of the candidate is not clouded by any other extraneous considerations like caste, creed, colour, sect, religion or region. In consideration of claims, merit alone should enter into objective and impartial assessments. The object appears to be that the A.C.Rs. be written by competent officer and approved by superior officer objectively and impartially without being influenced by any extraneous and irrelevant consideration, to augment efficiency in public service and to improve competence. For the purpose of selection, Department Promotion Committee should be formed in each Ministry/Department/Office, whenever an occasion arises, for promotions/confirmations etc. The D.P.Cs. so constituted shall judge the suitability of officers for:
(a) promotions to selection as well as non-selection posts;

(b) confirmation in their respective grades/posts;

(c) assessment of the work and conduct of probationers for the purpose of determining their suitability for retention in service or their discharge from it or extending their probation; and

(d) consideration of cases of Government servants for crossing the Efficiency Bar.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.