Holding

The DPC’s assessment that the appellant was not fit for promotion is not subject to judicial review and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The case concerned Smt. Nutan Arvind, a Central Civil Services officer who was not included in the promotion panel prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for a vacancy that arose before 12 May 1988. The appellant contended that the DPC had wrongly applied the post‑May 1988 merit‑based grading system and that the officer who prepared her confidential report was not competent. The Court examined the Government’s administrative instructions of 17 May 1957, as endorsed in Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya, which required promotion prior to May 1988 to be based on seniority, while after that date merit and confidential reports could be used. It held that the DPC, a high‑level committee, had correctly considered the candidates’ merits and that the judiciary cannot act as an appellate authority over the DPC’s assessment. No manifest error of law was found, and the appellant’s challenge was rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee’s assessment of the appellant’s suitability for promotion, based on confidential reports and merit, was lawful.
Whether the court can review the DPC’s decision as an appellate authority.
Whether the officer who prepared the appellant’s confidential report was competent to do so.

Subjects

service lawdepartmental promotionsenioritymeritconfidential reportsappellate jurisdictionCentral Civil ServicesDPC

Judgment

•

SMT. NUT.AN ARVIND A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JANUARY 15, 1996

[K, RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Central Civil Services-Pro1notion-Departmental Promotion
Committee-Field ~f choice-Prior to May 12, 1988 011 the basis of se11iority-
Administrative instructio11s issued there~fter-(;rading on the basis of Confi- c
dential Reports Assessed 'Very Good' and 'Good'-Those with 'very Good'
promoted-None with 'Good' included in the panel~eld Valid-Court not to
sit over the assessment made by DPC as an appellate authority--Officers
competent to write C011fidential Reports-JI was for DPC to consider at the
time lVhen assessment of the respective candidate is made. D
Union ~f India ~f India Etc. v. Majji Jangamayya Etc., [1977] 2 SCR
28, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2546of1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.94 of the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1796 of 1989.

Dr. Ashok Agarwal and P.D. Sharma for the Appellant.
I
K. Lahiri, P.P. Singh and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated December 22,
1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
G
0.A. No. 1796 of 1989.

We had issued notice to the respondents to show to this Court whether
the consideration for promotion was on merit and ability or seniority-cum-
merit and what was the principle that was followed in grading the Officers by H
491
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] I S.C.R.
A the D.P.C. Pursuant to the said notice, learned counsel for the Union of India
has brought to our notice the instructions issued by the Government of India
and was in vogue prior to May 12, 1988. The Administrative Instructions
contained in Memorandum of the Government dated 17th May, 1957 which
was approved by this Court in Union ~f India Etc. v. Majji Jangamayya Etc.,
[ 1977] 2 SCR 28. This Court had accepted the criteria laid down in those
B
instructions which were as under:

"I. Greater emphasis should be laid on merit as a criterion.

2. The Departmental Promotion Committee should first decide the
field of choice, namely, the number of eligible officers awaiting
c promotion who should be considered for inclusion in the selection list.
An officer of outstanding merit may be included in the list even if he
is outside the normal field of choice.

3. The field of choice wherever possible should extend to 5 to 6 times
D the numoer of vacancies expected.

4. From among such officers those who are considered unfit for
promotion should be excluded and the remaining should be classified
•
es 'outstanding' 'very good' and 'good' on the basis of merit as
determined by their respective records of service. The selection list
E should then be prepared by placing the names of the order of these
three categories without disturbing the seniority inter se within each
category.

5. Promotions should strictly be made from such selection list in the
order in which the names are finally arranged. The selection list
F should be periodically reviewed removing from the list names of
persons who have been promoted, and including fresh names."

On consideration of the above instructions, this Court had held thus:

"The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be
G governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted
by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post
of Sub-Registrar, Grade II will be according to the new rules on the
zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and, therefore, there was
no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling
H the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not
NUTAN ARVIND (SMT.) v. VO.I. 493
the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the A
amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new
rules."

It is thus the settled law that prior to May 1988 grading used to be done
as per Board's instructions and, therefore, the field of choice was done strictly
on the basis of the seniority. Grading is now being done according to the B
confidential reports on the basis of principle of 'outstanding', 'very good',
good' etc. etc. it is stated by the Tribunal in paragraph 14 at page l:i that it·
had perused the DPC proceedings placed before it and observed thus :

"We shall next consider the allegations in respect of the DPC. We have
seen the records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents
c
which includes the note to the DPC and the proceedings of the DPC.
The DPC met under the Chairmanship of Shri Jagdish Rajan, Member
UPSC and included the Secretary, Department of Revenue, the
Chairman, CBDT and Member CBDT. The meetings were held on
23rd to 25th and 30th March, 1988. We notice that the members D
signed the proceedings on 30.3.1988 itself. The records of 141
persons were considered and a panel of 65 persons was prepared
which includes 4 SC candidates. The name of the applicant does not
find a place in the panel. No officer has been assessed as 'outstand-
ing'. The committee had assessed the officers as either 'Very good' E
or 'good'. In some cases, the assessment was placed in a sealed cover.
The applicant was assessed as 'Good'. None included in the penal had
the rating 'Good'."

The DPC which is a high-level committee, considered the merits of the
respective candidates and the appellant, though considered, was not promoted. F
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that one K.S. Rao was the
officer at the relevant time to review the performance of the appellant whereas
in fact one Menon had reviewed it. The latter was not competent to review
the performance of the appellant and to write the confidentials. We are afraid
we cannot go into that question. It is for the DPC to consider at the time when
the assessments of the respective candidates is made. When a high-level
G
committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the
grading and considered there cases for promotion, this Court cannot sit over
the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority. The DPC would
come to its own conclusion on the basis of review by an officer and whether
he is or is not competent to write the confidentials is for them to decide and H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] l S.C.R.
,
A call for report from the proper officer. It had done that exercise and found the
appellant not fit for promotion. Thus we do not find any manifest error of law
for interference.

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel that since the appellant
was superseded for the subsequent period also, she could not file any
B proceedings in the Tribunal due to the pendency of this matter. If she is
aggrieved against such a supersession, this order does not preclude her to
agitate her rights according" to law. ·

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

C G.N. Appeal dismissed.