Supreme Court of India
SARAT KUMAR DASH AND ORS.versusBISWAJIT PATNAIK AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 495
- Decided
- 27 October 1994
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
When promotions are based on merit‑cum‑suitability with due regard to seniority, seniority has no role where merit and suitability are determinable, and the PSC’s objective grading system suffices as the reason for selection, so the Tribunal’s order setting aside the appointments was erroneous.
Summary
The case concerned the promotion of Drug Inspectors to Assistant Drugs Controller posts. The Government, lacking statutory rules, adopted the principle of "merit‑cum‑suitability with due regard to seniority" and asked the Public Service Commission (PSC) to evaluate candidates using an objective grading system based on service records. The PSC graded candidates, awarded marks, and recommended four officers, including the appellants, for regular promotion. The Tribunal set aside these appointments, holding that the PSC should have recorded reasons and that seniority was not given due consideration. The Supreme Court held that under the merit‑cum‑suitability principle, seniority is irrelevant where merit and suitability are determinable, and that the PSC’s grading itself constitutes sufficient reason, rendering the Tribunal’s order erroneous. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s orders were set aside.
Issues considered
- The appropriate role of seniority in promotions governed by the principle of merit‑cum‑suitability with due regard to seniority.
- Whether the Public Service Commission must record separate reasons for its recommendations when an objective grading system is used.
- Whether the omission of recorded reasons violates the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem.
Subjects
service lawpromotionmerit‑cum‑suitabilitysenioritynatural justiceaudi alteram partempublic service commissiongrading systemreasons for promotion
Judgment
SARAT KUMAR DASH AND ORS. A
v.
BISWAJIT PATNAIK AND ORS.
OCTOBER 27, 1994
[I(. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.J B
/
SERVICE LAW-Promotion-Principle of 'merit-cum-suitability with
due regard to seniority '-Seniority should have no role to play when
candidates found to be meritorious and suitable for higher posts-When
objective criteria evolved in awarding marks to candidates-No separate
reasons in arranging order of merit need be given. C
NATURAL JUSTICE-Principle of audi alterim partem-Omission to
give reasons-Whether amounts to violation ofprinciple ofnatural justice.
While the appellants and respondents were continuing as Drug
Inspectors, four vacancies for the post of Asstt. Drugs Controller had D
arisen . .Preceding regular appointment, the Government constituted a
Departmental Promotion Committee which had considered and
recommended the cases of respondents for ad hoc promotion to the
posts and the Government had appointed the respondents and referred _
the matter to the Public Service Commission for recommendation for
regular appointments. Before recommending to the PSC, since no rules E
or the criteria for consideration was prescribed, the Government
decided to adopt 'merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority' as
principle to consider the case of the persons for promotion. The names
of 12 candidates, including adhoc promotee5 were sent to the P.S.C. for
consideration. F
Adhering to the evolved criteria, considering the cases of the
candidates, the names of the appellants and the 5th respondent were
recommended for regular promotion. Accordingly, they came to be
appointed by the Government. The respondents challenged their
appointments. The Tribunal set aside the appointments on the findings G
that there was no rule prohibiting the PSC to give reasons in support of
their recommendations; reasons were necessary for evaluation of the
relative merits of the candidates, the Government independently had
not applied its mind to the merits of the candidates; no speaking order
was passed in making promotions; and the seniority was not given any
due consideration. H
223
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A These appeals had been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal.
It was contended by the appellants that in case Qf 'merit-cum-
suitability with due regard to seniority', the principle of seniority has
no role to play.
The respondents contended that the PSC itself had evolved grading
B of outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory, average etc. from C. Rs.
and it was not open to the PSC to evolve grading. ·
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. In the case of merit-cum-suitability, the seniority
c should have no role to play when the candidates were found to be
meritorious and suitable for higher posts. This principle inculcates
dedicated service, and accelerates ability and encourage merit to excel
merit. The seniority would have its due place only where the merit and
ability are approximately equal or where it is not possible to assess
inter-se merit and the suitability of two equally eligible competing
D candidates who come very close in the order of merit and ability. Under
those circumstances, the seniority will p'ay its due role and calls it in
aid for consideration. But in case where the relative merit and
suitability or ability has been considered and evaluated, and found to
be superior, then the seniority has no role to play. In the instant case,
the PSC had evolved the correct procedure in grading the officers and
E the marks had been awarded according to the grading. The grading
was given by the Government and the PSC evolved the criteria of
giving marks on the basis of the grading given by the Government. The
principle of 'merit-cum-suitability with due. regard to seniority' had
been correctly applied to the facts in this case. It was also seen that the
·PSC had objectively evolved the criteria and determined the merit and
F suitability of the candidates. (229-E-G, 230-B, D)
R.S. Das v. U.0.1. and Ors., (1986) Suppl. SCC 617; National
Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K Kalyana Raman
and Ors., AIR (1992) SC 1906 and Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. v. U.0.1.
and Ors., (1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 575, relied on.
G
1.2. The principle of audi a/terim partem is a basic concept of the
principle of natural justice. Howevet, the doctrine is not a cure to all
the ills in the process. Its application depends upon the factual matrix
to improve administrative efficiency and expediency and to meet out
justice. The procedure adopted would be just and fair. The reasons are
H links between maker of the order or the author of the decision and the
S. K. DASH v. B. PATNAIK 225
order itself. The record is called to consider whether he has given due A
consideration to the facts placed before him before he arrives at the
decision. Therefore, the reasons in tile order or found from the record
bridges the link between the maker of the order and the order itself or
decision. Therefore the natural justice is not a rigid nor an inflexible
rule. It should be applied to a given fact situation, depending upon the
background of the statutory provisions, nature of the right which may B
be affected and the consequences that may entail. In the instant case to
the tribunal evolved the objective criteria in awarding marks to the
given grading of the candidates and on that basis recommended their
cases for promotion. The grading is to obviate the need to record
reasons. The finding of the Tribunal that the selection by PSC without
recording reasons or need to record separately the reasons for evolving C
the criteria for selection is also clearly illegal. (230-G-H, 231-A-D)
1.3. It is incumbent upon the appointing authority, the
Government, to have the opinion of the PSC and to consider the same.
Since the Government had accepted the recommendations made by the D
PSC as found from the note file, there was no need for the Government
again to record reasons in accepting the recommendations made by the
PSC. (231-E)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8768-71 of
1994.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.93 of the Orissa.
Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 1269of1989.
P.P. Rao, J.R. Das, A.K. Mishra, A.K. Panda, Raj Kumar Mehta, Vinoo
Bhagat and N.K. Sharma for the appearing parties. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered by :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
G
Heard the learned counsel. While the appellants and respondents-
Biswaj it Patnaik and Jagannath Prasad Mishra were continuing as Drug
Inspectors, four vacancies for the post of Asstt. Drugs Controller, (Junior
Class-I) have arisen. Preceding regular appointment, the Government
constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee which had considered H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A and recommended the cases of respondents for adhoc promotion to the
posts and the Government had appointed the respondents and referred the
matter to the Public Service Commission for recommendation for regular
appointments. Before recommending to the PSC, since no rules or the
criteria for consideration was prescribed, the Government had decided to
adopt 'merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority' as principle to
B consider the case of the persons for promotion. The names of 12 candidates,
including adhoc promotees were sent to the P.S.C. for consideration. We
are informed that since two of them were already promoted to the higher
posts of Grade-I Deputy Drug Controllers, their cases were not considered.
Two of them were· found to be unfit. The PSC had thought over the
feasibility to apply the principle of 'merit-cum-suitability with due regard
c to seniority' secured the statutory rules applicable to similar selection posts
in other departments and after due deliberation adopted the aforesaid
principle. Thereafter, the PSC has evolved the procedure, as stated in the
affidavit filed by the PSC pursuant to our order dated 4.8.1994, thus:
"He (Chairman the UPSC) explained the system of
D evaluation of C.C.Rs adopted by the PSC. The Commission
is considering the reports of 6 years immediately preceding
the time of selection. While evaluating the C.S.R. they are
graded and awarded marks as follows:
(i) Outstanding : I 0 marks
E
(ii) Very good: 9 marks
(iii) Good : 8 marks
(iv) Satisfactory : 7 marks
F
(v) Average: 6 marks
Adverse rematks are not given any marks and no minus
marks are given. However, when the assessment contains a
critical observation alongwith other favourable comments
G the Commission takes an overall view of the assessment and
grades the C.R. as Average, Satisfactory, Good etc.
However, when there is an adverse remark indicating that
the integrity is doubtful, the officer is not considered
suitable for promotion. Similarly if there are adverse
remarks for two years the officer is not generally considered
H suitable.
S. K. DASH v. B. PATNAIK 227
The final grading is decided by taking the average of the A
marks awarded for six years. For final grading categories:
A, B, C, D,. E, are adopted. This is done in the following
manner.
9.8 marks and above: Outstanding - Category A
B
7.8 to 9.79: Good and very good - Category B
6.8 to 7.79: Satisfactory - Category C
6 to 6. 79 : Average - Category D
Less than 6 : unsuitable c
In the final placement those who come within Category 'A'
are placed in the top followed by those in category B.C.D.
in each category the inter se seniority as 9er gradation list
will be maintained. Those graded as 'Good' and 'Very
Good' are both placed in the same category 'B' as the D
Commission follows the principle that an officer graded
'very good' should not supersede another graded as 'Good'.
In the case of the highest posts in the cadre and !\Vo levels
of posts immediately below it (for example the post of
Director and Joint Director, Level-I and Level-II) the E
Commission consider an officer suitable for promotion only
ifhe is in category 'B' i.e. his final grading must r.t least be
good. Following the above principle the Commission has
evaluated the C.C. Rolls of the officers within the zone of
consideration for the post of Asstt. Controller as in the F
Statement placed at Flag 'X'. Four officers Sri B.C. Panda,
Sri S.K. Das, Sri R.N. Sahu and Sri G.S. Mohapatra come
within 'B' category and hence they have been
recommended against the four vacancies."
Adhering to the evolved criteria, considering the cases of the G
candidates, the names of the appellants and B.C. Panda, the 5th respondent
in these appeals are recommended for regular promotion. The Government
had a doubt whether J.P. Misra and S.K. Das do not stand on the same
footing and requested the PSC for reconsideration of the case of J.P. Misra.
The PSC reaffirmed its recommendation of S.K. Das. Accordingly, they
came to be appointed by the Government. The respondents challenged their H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A appointments in the Tribunal on diverse grounds in O.A. Nos. 1269/89,
171/90 and 1235/89. The Tribunal in its order, dated June 18, 1993 set
aside the appointments on the findings that there is no rule prohibiting the
PSC to give reasons in support of their recommendations; reasons are
necessary for evaluation of the relative merits of the candidates the
Government independently had not applied its mind of the merits of the
B candidates; no speaking order was passed in making promotions; and the
seniority was not given any due consideration. At different places the PSC
has stated in its counter affidavit of the respondents being 'unsuitable' and
'less suitable'. There is a world of difference between 'unsuitable' and 'less
suitable' which would show their non application of mind to the relevant
facts. Under those circumstances, neither the PSC itself nor the Govt. are
c clear in their view, as to the correct criteria to be applied in recommending
the candidates or making appointments to the posts of A_sstt. Drug
Controller (Junior Class-I).
It is contended by Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants that the Tribunal has committed grievous error in placing
D reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. ML. Cooper and
Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 797. Therein, unamended Rule 5 (2) of the statutory
rules provides that in case. of supersession of the officer of the police
service of the State, the PSC was required to record reasons. Under those
circumstances, this Court has directed that recording of reasons was
necessary. He further contends that in the Judgment itself, this Court held
E that in case of 'merit-cum-suitability' with due regard to seniority, the '
principle of seniority has no role to play and the ratio therein was not
properly understood by the Tribunal. We find force in the contention.
It is seen that the Government, in the absence of statutory rules, have
applied, by administrative order, the principle of 'merit-cum-suitability
F with due regard to seniority. It is settled law that in case of promotion to the
posts of higher cadre, it has always been the settled criteria applied by the
Govt. is 'merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority' or 'merit and
ability' but not 'seniority' or 'seniority-cum-suitability'. In fact, this
question was considered by PSC, as stated earlier, before its evaluation of
G the respective merits. They secured the rules in the comparable services of
the State where the principle of 'merit-cum-suitability with due regard to
seniority' is the statutory rule and thereby, the PSC had accepted the
recommendation of the Government to apply the above rule to adjudge the
relative merits of the candidates and in fact they did so apply.
H In Cooper's case this Court has stated with regard to the principle thus:
S. K. DASH v. B. PATNAIK 229
"When Regulation 5 (2) says that the selection for inclusion A
in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all
respects with due regard to seniority, what it means is that
for inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects
should be the governing consideration and that seniority
should play only a secondary role. It is only when merit and B
suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a
determining !actor or if it is not fairly possible to make an
assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two
eligible candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority
would tilt the scale. But, to say, as the High Court has done
that seniority is the determining factor and that it is only if C
the senior is found unfit that the junior can be thought of for
inclusion in the list is, with respect, not a correct reading of
Regulation 5 (2). I do not know what the High Court would
have said had Regulation 5 (2) said: "Selection for inclusion
in the select list shall be based on seniority with due regard D
to merit and suitability." Would it have said that the
interpretation to be put upon the hypothetical Sub-
regulation (2) is the same as it put ueon the actual Sub-
regulation ?"
In case of merit-cum-suitability, the seniority should have no role to E
play when the candidates were found to be meritorious and suitable for
higher posts. Even a junior most man may, steal a march over his seniors
and jump the queue for accelerated promotion. This principle inculcates
dedicated service, and accelerates ability and encourages merit to improve
excellence. The seniority would have its due place only where the merit and
ability are approximately equal or where it is not possible to assess inter-se F
merit and the suitability of two equally eligible competing candidates who
come very close in the order of merit and ability. Under those
circumstances, the seniority will play its due role and calls it in aid for
consideration. But in case where the relative merit and suitability or ability
has been considered and evaluated, and found to be superior, then the . -G
seniority has no role to play. In our view the PSC has evolved correct
_procedure in grading the officers; and the marks have been awarded
-according to the grading. It is seen that the four officers have come in the
grading of 'B'. In consequence, the PSC had adopted the seniority of the
appellants and Panda in the lower cadre in recommending their cases for
appointment in the order of merit. H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent - J.P. Mishra
contended that the PSC itself has evolved grading of outstanding, very
good, good, satisfactory, average etc. from C.Rs, which is not open to the
PSC to evolve grading. We cannot accept that contention to be correct.
Firstly, this contention was not raised in the Tribunal and secondly, from
the file produced before us by the PSC, it is clear that they have seen the
B grading was given by the Government and they PSC evolved the criteria of
giving marks 0n the basis of the grading given by the Government. With
regard to the merit and ability this Court has consistently been following the
view as extracted herein from Cooper's case in other decisions vide R.S.
Das vs. U.O.l and Ors., [1986] Suppl. SCC 617, National Institute of
Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Ors.,
c AIR [1992] SC 1906, para 7 and Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. v. U.0.1. and
Ors., [1993] Suppl. 3 SCC 575, paras 8 and 9 at pages 584 to 586.
Accordingly, we hold that the principle of 'merit-cum-suitability with
due regard to seniority' has been correctly applied on the facts in this case.
We have also seen that the PSC has objectively evolved the criteria and
D detennined the merit and suitability of the candidates. In S.R. Dass case, the
amended Rule 5 (2) of the Regulation of IAS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955, Rule 5 (4) evolved the principle to classify eligible
officer as, outstanding, very good, good or unfit, as the case may be, on an
overall-relative assessment of their service record, Rule 5 (5) directed to
prepare list and inclllde the candidates for appointment to the required
E
number of vacancies. Considering the Rule at p.631 in para 16 and
following the ratio in Copper's case, this Court held that the grading was
for the purpose of being placed in the select list to ensure that select list is
drawn up on the basis of merit and suitability and to obviate the necessity
of giving reasons for the supersession of any officer. In para 18 at p.632, it
F was further held that there was no necessity to record any reason, in view of
the amended statutory provisions. Therefore, the criticism of the Tribunal
that due re!5ard to the seniority was not given is not correct.
The next question is whether omission to record reasons amounts to
violation of the principles of natural justice. The principle of audi alterim
G partem is a basic concept of the principle of natural justice. The
omnipotency inherent in the doctrine is that no one should be condemned
. without being heard or given an opportunity to the person effected to
present· his case before taking the decision or action. In the field of ,
administrative aftion, this principle has been applied to ensure fair play and
justice to the effected. person. However, the doctrine is not a cure to all the
H ills in the process. Its application depends upon the factual matrix to
S. K. DASH v. B. PATNAIK 231
improve administrative efficiency and expediency and to meet out justice. A
The procedure adopted would be just and fair. The reasons are links
between maker of the order or the author of the decision and the order
itself. The record is called to consider whether he has given due
con.;ideration to the facts placed before him before he arrives at the
decision. Therefore, the reasons in the order or found from the record
bridges the link between the maker of the order and the order itself or B
decision. Therefore, the natural justice is not a rigid nor an inflexible rule. It
should be applied to a given fact situation, depending upon the background
of the statutory provisions, nature of the right which may be effected and
the consequences that may entail. It is already seen that the Tribunal
evolved the objective criteria in awarding marks to the given grading of the
candidates and on its basis recommended their cases for promotion. In R.S. C
Dass case, this Court held that the grading itself is a reason and no separate
reasons in that behalf in arranging the order of merit need be given. The
grading is to obviate the need to record reasons. The finding of the Tribunal
that the selection by PSC without recording reasons or need to record
separately the reasons for evolving the criteria for selection is also clearly D
illegal.
It is incumbent upon the appointing authority, the Government to have
the opinion of the PSC and to consider the same. Since the Government had
accepted the recommendations made by the PSC as found from the note
file, there is no need for the Government again to record reasons in
accepting the recommendations made by the PSC. The finding of the E
Tribunal that the bald and vague order of appointment is arbitrary,
therefore, is illegal. Thus we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal
has grievously erred in directing the Government to reconsider the matter
afresh.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal. are set F
aside and the O.As. filed in the Tribunal stand dismissed. No costs.
A.G. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search