U.0.I.versusS.P. NAYYAR

                        [2014] 6 S.C.R. 116


A                              U.0.1.
                                 v.
                           S.P.NAYYAR
                 (Civil Appeal No. 5852 o,f 2014)

                          JUNE 30, 2014.
8
          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                  KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

        Constitution of India, 1950:
c
       Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of -
  Held: High Court under Art. 226 cannot sit in appeal over the
  assessment made by DPC - If the assessment made by
  DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record
D has not been considered by DPC, it is always open to High
  Court under Art. 226 to remit the matter back to DPC for
  recommendation, but in the absence of Character Rolls of
  other candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion, it
  is not open to High Court to assess the merit of one individual
E who approaches it and direct to promote such person to higher
  post.

        Administrative Law:

       Bias - Held: Bias and malafide acts can be adjudged
F only on the basis of evidence - Assessment of Character Roll
  by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as
  'Good' cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was
  biased against the person whose CR is assessed - In the
G instant case, merely because the Accepting Officer assessed
  the ACR of respondent as 'Good' as against assessment of
  'Very Good' made by initiating Officer, it cannot be said that
  he was biase,d against respondent.

        Service Law:
H                               116
                 U.0.1. v. S.P. NAYYAR                    117


      Promotion - Border Security Force - Promotion to post      A
of Additional DIG - Criterion - Merit-cum-seniority - DPC
having not found respondent fit, not recommended him for
promotion - Plea of respondent that though Initiating Officer
and Reviewing Officer rated him as "Very Good" for two years,
Accepting Officer, ma/a fide, down-graded him to 'Good' - Writ   B
petition allowed by High Court - Held: Selection to the post
of Addi. DIG is based on merit-cum-suitability which is to be
adjudged on the basis of ACRs of different candidates - The
merit position can be adjudged by Selection Committee on
appreciation of their Character Roll - No ground has been        C
made out by respondent to show as to why the assessment
made by DPC is not to be accepted - High Court failed to
notice the said fact and wrongly discarded the assessment
made by D. P. C. - Findings of the judgment passed by High
Court cannot be upheld and the same is accordingly set aside     D
- Guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committees
and related matters issued under DOP& T OM dated
10.4.1989 - Para.1.2.

     The respondent, who was the Commandant in                   E
Border Security Force and was considered for promotion
to the post of Additional DIG, was not found fit by the DPC
and, as such, was not recommended by it. The
respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the decision of the DPC. He imputed this to          F
be mala fide acts of appellant no. 3, who as Accepting
Officer, downgraded his twq CRs to 'Good' contrary to
the grading as 'Very Good' given by the Initiating Officer
and the Reviewing Officer. The High Court allowed the
writ petition holding that the respondent was targeted and       G
wrongly superseded due to personal bias of his superior
officer. The High Court directed the authorities to
promote the respondent and, the consequential benefits
to be paid accordingly.            ·
                                                                 H
    118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. High Court under Art. 226 of. the
  Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the
  assessment made by the DP.C. If the assessment made
B by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or
  proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is
  always open to the High Court under Art. 226 of the
  Co.nstitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for
  recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the
c merit on its own, on perusal of the service record of one
  or the other employee, and cannot direct to promote a
  person to the higher post, without giving a plausibre
  ground. [para 12 and 16] [123-H; 124-A-B; 125-B]

        1.2. The selection to the post of Addi. DIG is based on
0
  merit-cum-suitability which is to be adjudged on the basis·
  of ACRs of different candidates. The merit position can be
  adjudged by the Selection Committee on appreciation of
  their Characte·r Roll. In absence of the Character roll of
E other candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion,
  it is not open to the High Court to assess the merit of one
  individual who moves before the High Court, to give a·
  finding whether he comes within the zone of promotion
  or fit for promotion. [para 13] [124-B-D]
F     1.3. The bias and malafide acts can be adjudged only
  on the basis of evidence. The assessment of Character
  Roll by one or the other officer, giving a general grade
  such as 'Good' cannot be the sole ground to hold that
  the officer was biased against the person whose
G Character Roll is assessed. In the instant case, there is
  nothing on record to suggest that appellant no. 3 was
  biased against the respondent. Merely because he
  assessed the ACR of the respondent as 'Good' as
  against assessment of 'Very Good' made by 1.0. it cannot
H
                U.0.1. v. S.P. NAYYAR                    119


be said that he was biased against the respondent. No           A
ground has been made out by the respondent to show
as to why the assessment made by the DPC ·is not to be
accepted. The High Court failed to notice the said fact and
wrongly discarded the assessment made by the D.P.C.
High Court was wrong in holding that the respondent             B
was targeted due to the personal bias of appellant no. 3.
It was also not justified in directing the authorities to
promote the respondent to the post of Addi. DIG. The
judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. [para 11,
14, 15 and 17] [124-D-F, G-H; 125-B-C]                          C

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5852 of 2014

    . From the judgment and order dated 21.08.2012 in WPC.
                                                                0
No. 3004 of 2000 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi.

     S. P. Singh, Madhurima Mirdul, Chandan Kumar, B.
Krishna Prasad for the appellants.

    Aail Kumar Gautam, Ranbir S. Chillar for the Respondent.    E

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J 1. Leave
granted.
                                                                F
     2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants
against the order dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 3004/2000. By the impugned judgment, the
Division Bench of the High Court after going through the        G
relevant record including ACRs of respondent- S.P. Nayyar,
opined that due to personal bias of his superior officer,
E.N.Ram Mohan, the respondent- S.P. Nayyar was targeted
and was wrongly superseded in the matter of departmental
promotion and hence allowed the writ petition filed by the      H
    120       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   respondent directing the appellants to promote the respondent
    as Additional DIG with back wages with the following
    observations:

          "13. Under the circumstances, we allow the writ petition
B         and direct the petitioner to be promoted as Addi. DIG. We
          are directing petitioner to be promoted and not a review
          DPC to be held, for the reason, learned counsel for the
          respondent does not dispute that the bench mark to be
          achieved was 3 Very Good grading in the ACR in the
c         preceding 5 years and that the petitioner achieved the
          bench mark. Admittedly, there are no adverse entries
          against the petitioner. The petitioner had not suffered any
          penalty during the said 5 years period.

          14. Needless to state, petitioner's promotion as an Addi.
D
          DIG would be with effect from the date person immediately
          junior to the petitioner was promoted. We note that as an
          Addi. DIG, the petitioner would have superannuated on
          31st July, 2007. We direct petitioner to be paid wages for
          the said period, notwithstanding the petitioner not having
E
          rendered actual services on account of the apparent mala
          fide of the DG BSF. Needless to state, pension of the
          petitioner would be re-fixed in the grade applicable and
          paid accordingly. All consequential benefits will also flow.
          The petitioner is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.11,000/
F
          - to be paid by the respondents towards costs. Necessary
          payment be made to the petitioner within 12 weeks from
          today."

          3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-
G
       The respondent -S.P. Nayyar joined the Border Security
  Force (BSF) as an Assistant Commandant(Technical) in 1971
  and was promoted as Deputy Commandant in the year 1981.
  While in service, the respondent was issued Director-General's
H displeasure on 27th March, 1984 and 25th February, 1998 for
               U.0.1. v. S.P.NAYYAR                             121
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
not observing laid down procedure in disposal of condemned             A
vehicles and for irregularities in fabrication of recovery vehicles,
respectively.

     4. According to the appellants, as per paragraph 6.1.2. of
the guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committees and            B
related matters issued vi de DOP&T OM dated 10.4.1989,
Departmental Promotion Committees (hereinafter referred to
as 'DPCs' for short) have been empowered to enjoy full
discretion to devise their own method and procedure for
objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are          c
to be considered.

    5. The respondent was promoted as Second-in-command
in 1990 and became Commandant (Ordinary Grade) on 9th
February, 1993. Thereafter, the respondent became                      D
Commandant (as Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade got
merged) with effect from 1st October, 1997. On 25th January,
2000, the case of the respondent was considered for his
promotion by selection to the Rank of Addi. DIG by the DPC
constituted for such purpose. After consideration, the name of
                                                                       E
respondent, having not found fit, was not recommended by the
DPC.

      6. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 3004 of 2000 before Delhi High Court challanging
the decision of the said DPC. He alleged that he fulfilled the         F
criteria of having three 'Very Good" out of five previous ACRs,
yet persons junior to him were selected. He imputed this to be
malafide act of Appellant No.3 - E.N. Ram Mohan. The
appellants in their counter affidavit denied the said allegations
and brought to the notice of the High Court the service record,        G
decision taken by DPC and reasons for not recommending the
name of the respondent. The High Court after perusal of the
record, allowed the writ petition with the observation as
mentioned above.
                                                                       H
    122       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A       7. Learned counsel for the appellants made the following
    submissions to assail the judgment:

       (a) The High Court was not right in directing the appellants
  to grant promotion to the respondent rather than directing the
B appellants to reconsider the case under DPC; and

       (b) The High Court without any evidence, adjudicated
  disputed issue of malafide acts alleged against the appellant
  no. 3 in writ jurisdiction while dealing with a service matter,
C particularly, in the case where allegation was made by a person
  who had vested interest in the allegation.

       8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
   respondent was wrongly superseded in the matter of promotion
   from the rank of Commandant to the rank of Addi.DIG in the
D BSF in the DPC held on 25th November, 2000 which
  .considered the ACRs for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-
   97, 1997-98 and 1998-99.

         It was submitted that the ACRs of 1994-95 and 1995-96,
E   respondent was graded 'Very Good' by the Initiating Officer(IO)
    Reviewing Officer(RO) as well as Accepting Authority(AO). For
    the ACR of 1996-97, the respondent was graded 'Very Good'
    by the Initiating Officer as well as Reviewing Officer, but the
    appellant no. 3- E.N.Ram Mohan who was the Accepting
F   Officer, down-graded the ACR as 'Good' without recording any
    reason. However, the Director-General, BSF, undoing the
    damage, graded the respondent as 'Very Good'. It is further
    contended that the record produced before the High Court also
    revealed that appellant no.3 -E.N. Ram Mohan who took over
G   as Director-General, BSF, down-graded ACRs of the
    respondent for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to 'Good'
    contrary to the grading given by Initiating Officer and Reviewing
    Officer that too without assigning any reason there for, contrary
    to the instructions dated 3rd December, 1991. The down-
H   graded ACRs o! the respondent for the years 19~7-98 and
               U.0.1. v. S.P.NAYYAR                        123
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
1998-99 were never communicated to him.                            A

     9. bThe bench-mark for promotion from the rank of
Commandant to Addi. DIG is 'Very Good'. The bench-mark
'Very Good' has been defined in the instructions dated 6th
February, 1991. The sum·and substance of the said instructions     B
is that the DPC would grade an officer as 'Very Good' if atleast
three of his five ACRs are 'Very Good' and in the remaining
ACRs under consideration, the performance is generally 'Good'
and that there is no adverse entry in any of the five ACRs under
consideration.                                                     c
       10. According to the learned counsel for the respondent,
despite the two wrong down-graded and un-communicated
ACRs for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the respondent
fulfilled the bench-mark, having 'Very Good' in three ACRs for     D
the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 'Good" in his
remaining two ACRs and there is no adverse entry against him
in any of the five AC Rs under consideration. However, despite
the aforesaid, the DPC held on 25th November, 2000, which
was presided over by the appellant no. 3 -E.N. Ram Mohan
                                                                   E
graded the respondent as 'Good" as against the 'Very Good',
resulting into supersession of the respondent to the rank of
Addi. DIG depriving the respondent of well-deserved promotion.

     11. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned          F
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that High Court was
wrong in holding that the respondent was targeted due to the
personal bias of appellant no. 3 -E.N Ram Mohan. The High
Court was also not justified in directing the authorities to
promote the respondent to the post of Addi. DIG.                   G

    12. It is settled that High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment
made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is
                                                                   H
    124      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not
    been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High
    Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter
    back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court
    cannot assess the merit on its own, on perusal of the service
B   record of one or the other employee.

       13. The selection to the post of Addi. DIG is based on
  merit-cum-suitability which is to be adjudged on the basis of
  ACRs of different candidates. The merit position can be
C adjudged by the Selection Committee on appreciation of their
  Character Roll. In absence of the Character roll of other
  candidates, who were also in the zone of promotion, it is not
  open to the High Court to assess the merit of one individual
  who moves before the High Court, to give a finding whether he
D comes within the zone of promotion or fit for promotion.

         14. The bias and malafide acts can be adjudged only on
    the basis of evidence. The assessment of Character Roll by
    one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as 'Good'
    cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was biased
E   against the person whose Character Roll is assessed. In the
    instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the
    appellant no. 3 -E.N. Ram Mohan was biased against the
    respondent. Merely because he assessed the ACR of the
    respondent as 'Good' as against assessment of 'Very Good'
F   made by 1.0. it cannot be said that he was biased against the
    respondent.

       15. The Departmental Promotion Committee consists of
  a Chairman and the members. Even if bias is alleged against
G the Chair-person, it cannot be presumed that all the members
  of the Committee were biased. No ground has been made out
  by the respondent to show as to why the assessment made by
  the DPC is not to be accepted. The High Court failed to notice
  the aforesaid fact and wrongly discarded the assessment made
H by the D.P.C.
               U.0.1. v. S.P.NAYYAR                           125
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     16. It is also settled that the High Court under Article 226    A
can remit the matter for reconsideration if a person was not
properly considered for a promotion for which he was eligible.
But it cannot direct to promote a person to the higher post,
without giving a plausible ground.
                                                                     B
      17. For the reasons as aforesaid, we cannot uphold the
findings of the judgment dated 21st August, 2012 passed by
the High Court of Delhi and the same is accordingly set aside.

     18. The appeal is allowed.
                                                                     c
Rajendra Prasad                                    Appeal allowed.