S.L. SONIversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

                                      S.L. SONI                                   A
                                           v.
                            STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

                                    MAY 8, 1995

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                           B

            Service Law :

            M.P. F-0rest Service (Recrnitment) Rules, 1977:

          Promotion-Claim fo,-Objective consideration by High Power Com-          C
    mittee-Committee's finding that candidate was unfit for promotion on
    merits-Held not a fit case for intelference by Supreme Court.

-         A High Level Committee considered the claim of all eligible persons
    for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forest in accordance with the       D


-   criteria prescribed hy M.P. Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and
    rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that he was not fit for
    promotion. The M.P. Administrative Tribunal directed that the appellant's
    case be considered without taking into consideration the uncommunicated
    adverse remarks against the appellant. Accordingly the Committee recon-
    sidered the matter but found the appellant not eligible for promotion.        E
          In appeal to this Court on the question whether the appellant's claim
    for promotion was considered in accordance with Rules:

            Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                  F
          HELD : A high level committee objectively considered the claim and
    found that the appellant was not fit for promotion on merits. On perusal
    of the proceedings of the Committee, the Court"is satisfied about this.
    Therefore, it is not a case warranting this Court's interference. [43-D]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5656 of               G
    1995.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.93 of the Madhya Pradesh
    Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal in T.A.No. 1794 of 1988.

            L.K. Pandey for the Appellant.                                        H
                                           41
    42                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A            Sakesh Kumar, G3utam Bose and Mr. S.K. Agnihotri for the Respon-
    dents.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

             Leave granted.
B
           This appeal arises against the order of the M.P. Admn. Tribunal,
    Bhopal Bench in Transferred Application No. 1794/88 dated 5.3.1993. The
    only question in this appeal is whether the claim for promotion as Assistant
    Forest Conservator was considered in accordance with Rules. We have
    called for and perused the record. A High Level Committee, consisting of
c   a Member of the Public Service Commission as Chairman, Secretary to the
    Government, Forest Department and Principal Chief Conservator of


                                                                                    -
    Forests as members, was constituted to consider the claims of all eligible
    persons for promotion as Assistant/Conservator of Forest. The criteria
    adopted by the Committee was in accordance with the M.P. Forest Service
D   (Recruitment) Rules, 1977, (for short, 'the Rules'). The zone of considera-
    tion was five times the number of vacancies. Thereby there was wide
    chances for many to be considered. Only officers with a minimum of 8 years
    of service and confirmed in the cadre of Ranger were considered. The
    selection was based on merits with due regard to seniority. The merit was
                                                                                    -
    assessed on the basis of recorded annual confidential reports of the officers
E
    for the; previous five years to the year of consideration. The yardstick of
    merit adopted was that average assessment of last five years C.Rs. should
    be above "good". Integrity should be beyond doubt. In the case of officer
    against whom departmental enquiry was in progress, assessment was made
    without prejudice to the result of the said enquiry which was placed in a
F   sealed cover to be opened after the departmental enquiry proceedings are
    completed.

         Based thereon, the claims were considered and initially the appellant
    was not found fit for promotion and was rejected. The Tribunal, after
G   examination of the matter, gave the following direction:

                  "We conclude that the D.P.C. has erred in taking into con-
               sideration, the uncommunicated adverse remarks for the period
               ending March, 1978 while considering the applicant's fitness for
               promotion to the post of Asst!. Conservator of Forests. We ac-
H              cordingly direct that a fresh D.P.C. be constituted for evaluating
                       S.L. SONI v. STATE OF M.P.                       43

         applicant's claim for promotion with retrospective effe'ct. The A
         D.P.C. shall not take into consideration the adverse remarks for
         the year ending March, 1978, otherwise, it may follow the same
         criteria for adjudging applicant's suitability for promotion as has
         been followed by the D.P.C. held in 1982. The applicant, if found
         fit, will be entitled retrospective notional promotion and seniority B
         from the date his juniors were promoted. For the reasons
         recovered in para 3 above, the applicant will not be, however,
         entitled to any consequential cash benefits."

      Pursuant thereto, excluding the adverse comments made for the year
ending with March, 1978, the Committee reconsidered the matter and           C
found the appellant not eligible for promotion. Though Sri Pandey sought
to canvass the claim on merits, we cannot evaluate ourselves the relative
merits. A high level committee objectively considered the claim and found
the appellant was not fit for promotion on merits. We are satisfied about
this on perusal of the proceedings of the Committee.
                                                                             D
      In view of the above, we think that it is not a case warranting our
interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                  Appeal dismissed.