DEVISINGH MEENAversusUNION OF INDIA

                                 DEVISINGH MEENA                                A
                                        v.
                                  UNION OF INDIA

                                NOVEMBER 30, 2007
                                                                                B
               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND
                       LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]


                Service Law-Promotion-DPC not including the name of the
          officer in the panel for promotion-Minister at the stage of approval C
          included his name in the panel-DPC after reconsidering the case
          giving reasons for non-inclusion of his name-Accepted by the
          Minister-Claim for promotion-Denied by courts below-On appeal,
          held: Officer, since his name not recommended by DPC, not entitled
   'i     to promotion-In view of subsequent disapproval.of the claim of the D
          officer by Minister, claim not sustainable on the basis ofprevious order
          ofthe Minister.
               Appellant-Officer claimed promotion to the post of Chief
          Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade in Railways, on
          the ground that Minister had approved his promotion. His E
          representation was dismissed by the Authorities on the ground that
          by a subsequent order, the Minister agreed for non-inclusion of his
          name in the panel for promotion. His application claiming promotion
          was dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal. The order was
          further upheld by High Court in Writ Petition. Hence the present F
          appeal.

               Dismissing the appeal, the Court

               HELD: There is no scope for interference with the orders
          passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. There was no challenge G
-... ·l   to the Minister's subsequent order. From the records it is revealed
          that initialy, when DPC had referred the panel to the Minister for
          his approval, the name of the appellant was not included in the list.
                                          745
                                                                               H
    746           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A The Minister while approving the panel included the name of the
  appellant and then approved the panel. Subsequently, the matter was
  placed before DPC for re-consideration in view of the observations
  made by the Minister. Thereafter, DPC put up a detailed note
  indicating the reasons as to why the name of the appellant can not
B be included for promotion. The Minister accepted the reasons given            ,
  by the DPC for non-inclusion and further approved the panel which
  did not figure appellant's name. It is not in dispute as per applicable
  provisions, the promotions have been granted. Appellant's name was
  not recommended by the DPC and, therefore, he could not have been
C appointed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11) [748-A, B, C, D, F)
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No ..5543 of
    2007.
      From the Judgment and final Order dated 16.02.2005 of the High
D Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Application No. 16599 of
  2003.
          Pramod B. Agarwala and Praveena Gautam for the Appellant.
      R. Mohan, ASG., Kiran Bhardwaj and B. Krishna Prasad for the
E Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted
       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of
F the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
  His claim relates to the post of Senior Administrative Grade. He filed OA
  245 of2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad
  Bench (for Short the "Tribunal"). Before that he had moved OA 8639 of
  1997 making the grievance that was not granted the post of Chief
G Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade from 1995. His stand
  was that the Minister of Railways had approved his promotion in the said
  grade, but the same was not given effect to by the respondents. OA was
  decided on merits by order dated 15.1.1999. While dismissing the OA,
  Tribunal had observed that the applicant was not entitled for promotion
H
  DEVISINGHMEENAv. UNIONOFINDIA[PASAYAT,J.]                            747


to the post of Chief Commercial Manager in the grade w.e.f. I. I. I 995. A
The appellant had preferred Special Civil Application No. 10899 of2000
before the Gujarat High Court and while dismissing the same, learned Single
Judge had directed the respondents to decide the pending representation
of the applicant for his promotion in the light of existing rules and
regulations.                                                                B
       3. Subsequently, Misc. application no.132 of2001 was moved by
the appellant in the said Special Civil Application which was also rejected
by the Division Bench on 7.3.2001 in view of the appellant making a
statement that he would proceed before the appropriate forum in respect
of the challege. A speaking order was passed by the competent authority C
on the representation. Therefore, OA No. 245 of 2001 was filed.
Subsequently, prayer in the OA was for setting aside the order dated
2.2.2001 passed by the Member, Railway Board and for direction to the
Railways authorities to consider his case for promotion w.e.f. I 996.
                                                                              D
      4. It is to be noted that the representation was rejected on the ground
that though the Minister had initially approved his promotion to the Senior
Administrative Grade, subsequently, by order dated 26.4. I 997 he
concurred with non-inclusion of his name in the panel . He was not
considered for promotion. Before the Tribunal stand of the respondent E
was that merely because the Minister had earlier recommended for
inclusion of appellant's name in the Senior Administrative Grade at an
earlier stage, that did not confer any right to get promotion particularly
when the same Minister had subsequently approved the exclusion of his
name.
                                                                             F
      5. The stand of the appellant in support of the appeal is that once
the Minister had approved inclusion of his name, there was no question
of his subsequently disapproving the inclusion merely becasue it was
brought to his notice that inclusion ofhis'name was impermissible.
                                                                    G
    6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted th.at the
Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') did not recommend
appellant's name. On his representation, the Minister directed his
empanelment. Subsequently, when materials were placed before the
Minister, he directed that there was no scope for empanelment of H
                                                                                 t
    748            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A appellant.
        7. At this juncture it is neccessary to note that there was no •
  challenge to the Minister's subsequent order. From the records it is
  revealed that in the order of 1996, when DPC had referred the panel to
  the Minister for his approval, the name of the appellant was not included
B in the list. The Minister while approving the panel included the name of
  the appellant and then approved the panel. Subsequently, the Member,
  Special Railway Board, who was one of the members of the DPC,
  advised the Secretary, Railway Board, to place the matter before DPC
  for re-consideration in view of the observations made by the Minister.
c
        8. Thereafter, DPC put up a detailed note indicating the reasons as
  to why the name of the appellant can not be included for promotion to
  Senior Administrative Grade. The Minister accepted the reasons given
  by the DPC for non-inclusion and furhter approved the panel which did
D not figure appellant's name.
                                                                                     •
          9. It is not in dispute as per applicable provisions, the promotions
    have been granted. Appellant's name was not recommended by the DPC
    and, therefore, he could not have been appointed.

E       10. Appellant's stand is that once the Minister had directed inclusion
  of his name, there was no scope for making a departure from the view.
  This stand is clearly unsustainable. As has been rightly contended by th(:
  learned counsel for the respondent, at the first stage though the Minister
  had directed inclusion of appellant's name, subsequently when relevant
F material was placed before him, he took a view different from what he
  had taken earlier. As noted above, there was no challenge to the
  Minister's orders disapproving the case of the appellant.
       11. That being so, there is no scope for interference with the orders
  passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appeal is without merit
G and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.
    K.K.T.                                                Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                     -