Holding

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's case was different from R.S. Virk's and therefore upheld the review DPC's decision not to upgrade his rating.

Summary

The respondent, an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, sought promotion to Second‑in‑Command on the ground that his service record was similar to that of a colleague, R.S. Virk, who had been promoted after his Confidential Report (CR) for one year was upgraded from 'good' to 'very good' by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The respondent argued that his CR for 1987‑88 should likewise be upgraded, which would have given him the required four 'very good' ratings and entitlement to promotion with retrospective effect. The High Court initially directed his inclusion in the approved list, but on appeal directed the DPC to reconsider. The review DPC again refused to upgrade his rating, finding factual differences between the two cases. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent's case was identical to Virk's and whether the earlier High Court decision had finally resolved the issue. It held that the respondent's case was different, upheld the review DPC's decision, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent's service record and the treatment of his Confidential Report for 1987‑88 were identical to those of R.S. Virk, thereby obligating the DPC to upgrade his rating from 'good' to 'very good'.
Whether the earlier High Court decision had conclusively determined the respondent's entitlement to a 'very good' rating and, if so, what relief the DPC was required to grant.

Subjects

service lawpromotiondepartmental promotion committeeconfidential reportsselectionfairnessretrospective promotionadministrative law

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....,...
v.
A.K.NARULA

MAY 18,2007

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.ANDR.V. RA VEENDRAN,J.]

--";'·
Service Law: Proniotion-Selection, process of-Post of Second-in- ....
Command-Assessment on basis of confidential reports of last five years-

c Bench mark of 'very good'-Candidate having three ratings of 'good' and
two of 'very good'-Overall rating of 'good' by Departmental Promotion
Committee and candidate not empanelled-Candidates' case that his service
record similar to the promoted officer-DCP upgraded rating of promoted
officer from 'good' to· 'very good', giving overall rating of 'very good' and as
t.'.·
such candidates' rating 'good' to be upgraded to 'very good~ upgrading
, ,. D overall grading to 'very good', and name to be included in the approved
list-Held: Candidate's case different from promoted officer-CR shows that
...
promoted officer deserved upgradation and not the candidate-Review DPC I'

was to examine the case on merits-Thus, the decision of review DPC that
candidate did not deserve upgradation from 'good' to 'very good~ upheld-
Though the candidate is promoted but is not entitled to promotion from
E retrospective effect.

Recruitment Rules required promotions to be made by selection.
Departmental Promotion Committee directed that Confidential Reports to be
the basic inputs for assessment. DPC considered the CRs of eligible Assistant
Commandants for promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command. Benchmark
F
for promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command was 'very good'. A candidate
was to have four 'very good' reports of ACRs out of last 5 ACRs including
the ACR for the latest year and was to have no adverse remarks in CRs. DPC
empanelled for promotion, officers graded as 'very good' and officers as 'good'.
Respondent-Assistant Commandant had three ratings of 'good' for the years
G 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 and two ratings of'very good' for the years
1986-87 and 1989-90, and as such the DPC gave him overall rating of 'good'.
The first nineteen in the list of officers with the rating 'good'. were empanelled ·
and promoted. However, respondent's name did not figure in the list. '1-

H 262
U.0.1 v. A.K. NARULA 263

- Respondent filed writ petition seeking promotion since his service
record was similar to that RS-Assistant Commandant, who was promoted. It
was submitted that both had secured 'very good' for three years and 'good'
A

for two years, during the five years under consideration; that DPC upgraded
the rating of RS for the year 1988-89 from 'good' to 'very good' and, gave
him the overall rating of 'very good'; that in respect of the year 1987-88, his B
case was similar to that of RS for 1988-89, and therefore his rating for 1987-
88 ought to have been upgraded from 'good' to 'very good', thereby becoming
entitled to be placed in the block of 'very good' candidates selected for
promotion. During pendency of the writ petition respondent was promoted.
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the
appellants-Union oflndia to include the name of the respondent in the approved C
list of Assistant Commandants for appointment to the rank of Second-in-
Command from the date when anyone junior to him was promoted as Second-
in-Command. Appellant filed appeals. Division Bench of High Court partly
allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge and directed
the DPC to reconsider the respondent's case. A review DPC held that no case
was made out to upgrade respondent's rating for 1987-88 from 'good' to 'very D
good' and consequently, the overall rating of respondent remained 'good' and
DPC did not recommend his case for promotion from retrospective effect.
Competent authority approved the recommendations of the review DPC and
passed an order. Respondent challenged the same and sought promotion with
retrospective effect. Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition E
and directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for
promotion with reference to the DPC held on 13.6.1990 by treating the entry
for the year 1987-88 as 'very good'. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. In view of the finding that the case of respondent was different
from that of RS, the decision of Review DPC that the respondent did not
deserve upgradation from 'good' to 'very good' is upheld.
(Para 18) (274-C)

2.1. The records of RS disclosed that for the year 1988-89, the reporting G
authority had graded him as 'very good'; the reviewing authority had concurred
with but the accepting authority had downgraded his rating from 'very good'
· · to 'good' without assigning any reason for not accepting the concurrent rating
of 'very good' by the reporting authority and reviewing authority which was
not justified. Therefore, exercising the power given under the guidelines
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A contained in the OM dated 10.3.1989, DPC modulated his rating f.or that year
as 'very good'. As a consequence, the 'very good' rating of RS increased from
three to four, resulting in upgradation of overall DPC rating from 'good' to
'very good'. [Para 12) [271-C-F)

2.2. On careful consideration, it is found that respondent's case was
B different from that of RS. The CR of respondent for the year 1987-88 consisted
of two parts. For the first half period, that is, from 1.4.1987 to 26.9.1987, the
reporting authority had graded him as 'good' and reviewing authority had
graded him as 'very good' and the accepting authority had graded him as 'good'.
In regard to the second half, that is, 3.10.1987 to 31.3.1988, all the three
C authorities (reporting authority, reviewing authority and the accepting
authority) had rated him as only 'good'. There was no question of reviewing
. or upgrading the rating of respondent for the second half of 1987-88, as all
the three authorities had concurrently graded him as 'good'. Even in regard
to the first half of that year (1.4.1987 to 26.9.1987), unlike the case of RS
where both the reporting authority and the reviewing authority had
D unanimously given the rating 'very good', the reporting authority had rated
the respondent as 'good' and the reviewing authority had rated him as 'very
good'; and in view of divergence between the reporting authority and reviewing
authority, the accepting authority chose to rate him as 'good'. The DPC, on
assessment, had rightly found that there was no case for revising the grading
E of respondent The review DPC also found that the facts of respondent's case
were different from that of RS. The CRs demonstrated that RS deserved
upgrading and respondent did not [Para 13) [271-G-E; 272-A-C)

2.3. The review DPC reconsidered the matter and has given detailed
reasons as to why the case of the respondent was not similar to that of RS.
F There was no question of moving him from the block of officers with the overall
rating 'good' to the block of officers with the overall rating of 'very good' and
promoting him with reference to the DPC dated 3.6.1990. In the absence of
any allegation of ma/a fide or bias against the DPC and in the absence of any
arbitrariness in the manner in which assessment has been made, the High
Court was not justified in directing that the benefit of upgrading be given to
G respondent, as was done in the case of RS. (Para 14) (272-F-H; 273-A)

State Bank ofIndia v. Mohd Mynuddin (1987) 4 SCC 486; Union Public
Service Commission v. Hiranya/al Dev, (1988) 2 SCC 242 and Badrinath v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, [2000 8 SCC 395, referred to.

H 2.4. The High Court was of the view that if the downgrading of
U.0.1 v. A.K. NARULA 265
respondent's rating for the year 1987-88 by the accepting authority from 'very A
,___. good' to 'good' was similar to that of RS, then the same yardstick should be
applied to respondent and the rating that has been downgraded by the accepting
authority as 'good' should be upgraded as 'very good' for 1987-88. It also
observed that failure to do so would be unfair. Having made these observations,
the High Court set aside the decision ofDPC for 1990 and directed a review B
DPC to reconsider the case of the respondent Therefore, it follows that review
DPC was required to decide whether the case of the respondent for the year .
1987-88 was similar to that of RS for the year 1988-89, and if so, up-grade
the rating of respondent for the year 1987-88 as 'very good'. It is true that in
that event respondent also would have had four 'very good' rating and his
overall rating would have jumped from 'good' to 'very good'. But all that C
depended on the finding by Review DPC as to whether respondent was entitled
for upgradation of rating for 1987-88. (Para 16) (273-D-F]

2.5. The decision of Single Judge of High Court merged with the
judgment in the LPA. There is no conclusive finding in the judgment of the
Division Bench that the respondent was entitled for upgradation of the entry D
for 1987-88 from 'good' to 'very good'. The Division Bench held that no
plausible explanation was given for adopting different yardsticks in the case
of RS and the respondent, if respondent's case was similar to that of RS. The
direction by the Division Bench that 'if on reconsideration, the respondent is
found suitable, then he shall be promoted with retrospective effect' and that E
'DPC shall reconsider his case' i'nake it clear that DPC was required to
examine whether the case of respondent was identical to that of RS. Only if
the facts were the same, respondent was entitled to be treated in a manner
similar to RS. Therefore, the Review DPC was entitled to examine the case of
respondent on merits and take a decision. (Para 17) (273-G-H; 274-A-B]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27 .05.2005 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 4455 of2004.

Vikas Singh, ASG., B. Sunita Rao and Shanti Bhushan Chaubey for the G
Appellants.

S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Kumud L. Das for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
\..ii.
--....-·
I. Union of India has filed this appeal by special leave against the
judgment and order dated 27.5.2005 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Civil W.P. No.445512004.

B 2. Respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short) on 1.12.1971. He was promoted
as Assistant Commandant on 23.7.1983. Promotion from the post of Assistant
Commandant to the next higher post of Second-in-Command is on the basis \--
of selection. ""
c 3. The O.M. dated I 0.3.1989 issued by the Minisay of Personnel, Public -~

Grievances and Pension laid down the procedure of selection where the
Recruitment Rules required promotions to be made by selection. It provided
that where vacancies to be filled are more than four, the number of officers
to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short)
shall be' three times the number of vacancies. It authorized the DPC to decide
D
its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of
the candidates. It excluded interviews, unless specifically provided for in the
1'
relevant recruitment Rules and directed that Confidential Reports (CRs) were
to be the basic inputs for assessment. The O.M. required the DPC to follow
the procedure laid down therein to ensure that the evaluation of the CRs was
E fair, just and non-discriminatory. A summary of the relevant portions of the
procedure laid down in· the OM is given below:

(i) Suitability should be assessed on the basis of service record,
with particular reference to CRs for five preceding years. CRs. of
equal number of years should be considered in respect of all
F officers.
(ii) DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading that may
be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on ···-·-
the basis of entries made in the CRs. If the reviewing authority
or the accepting authority had overruled the reporting authority
G or the reviewing authority as the case may be, the remarks of the
latter authority should be taken as the final remarks for purposes
of assessment provided it is apparent from the relevant entries·
that the higher authority had come to a different assessment \,_
consciously after due application of mind. If the remarks of the
reporting authority, reviewing authority and accepting authority
H
U.0.1 v. A.K. NARULA [RA VEENDRAN, J.] 267
-L .'' are complementary to each other, and one does not have the A
""Y
effect of overruling the other, then final assessment shoul4 be
made by the DPC, by reading the remarks together.

(ill) DPC should give an overall grading to each officer whose CRs
are assessed, as outstanding, very good, good, average or unfit.
The panel of promotion should be prepared by the DPC based B
on the overall grading assigned to each of the candidates
considered by the DPC. Officers graded as 'outstanding' would
_, rank en bloc senior to those who are graded as 'very good' and
~
officers graded as 'very good' would nnk en bloc senior to those
who are graded as 'good' and placed in the select panel
accordingly. Officers with the same grading would maintain their c
1111111,,
inter se seniority in the feeder post. Appointments from the panel
should be made in the order of names appearing in the panel.

(iv) For promotion to posts which are in the level ofRs.3700-5000 and
above, the benchmark grade should be "very good". For
promotions to Group 'A' posts carrying lesser scales of pay, the D
,," benchmark grade should be "good".

4. A Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short) was convened
to fill up 48 vacancies of Second-in-Command on 13.6.1990. The DPC considered
the CRs of 144 eligible Assistant Commandants. The benchmark for promotion
to the rank of Second-in-Command was 'very good'. As per the parameters E
adopted by the DPC held on 13.6.1990 on the basis of their prevailing
instructions, a candidate should have four 'very good' reports of ACRs out
of last 5 ACRs including the ACR for the latest year and should have no
adverse remarks in CRs for the other years under consideration for securing
the benchmark of 'very good'. Out of 148 officers considered, DPC rated 39 F
officers as 'very good' and 80 officers as 'good'. After due deliberations, the
DPC recommended that the 39 officers who had secured the benchmark grade
of 'very good' should be empanelled for promotion. It also recommended that
an additional nine senior-most Assistant Commandants from those who were
graded as 'good' be empanelled for promotion to the rank of Second-in-
Command so that 48 vacancies could be filled. The DPC further empanelled 0
the next ten senior-most Assistant Commandants graded as 'good' for
promotion against 10 anticipated vacancies.

-- S. The respondent had three ratings of 'good' for the years 1985-86,
\9i1-iS and 1988-89 and two ratings of'very good' for the years 1986-87 and
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 1989-90. The DPC, therefore, gc:ve the overall rating of'good' to the respondent
As only 19 officers were needed from the list of officers with 'good' rating
to fill the existing as well as anticipated vacancies, only the first nineteen in .
the list of officers with the rating 'good' were empanelled and promoted. The
respondent, though rated 'good', was not empanelled for promotion, as his
B name did not figure in the first nineteen, having regard to the inter-se-
seniority among those who secured the overall rating of 'good'.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P. No.12316of1990 praying
for a direction to the appellants herein to include his name in the list of
officers approved for being appointed as Second-in-Command. The respondent
C contended that his service record was similar to that of R. S. Virk, another
Assistant Commandant, who was promoted. It was contended that both had
secured 'very good' for three years and 'good' for two years, during the five
years under consideration (1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90);
that the DPC upgraded the rating of R.S. Virk for the year 1988-89 from 'good'
to 'very good' and, consequently, gave him the overall rating of 'very good';
D that in respect of the year 1987-88, his case was similar to that ofR.S.Virk for
1988-89, and therefore his rating for 1987-88 ought to have been upgraded
from 'good' to 'very good' and that if it had been done, he would have also
got the overall rating of 'very good' instead of 'good', thereby becoming
entitled to be placed in the block of 'very good' candidates selected for
E promotion.

7. By order dated 11.2.1992, a learned Single Judge accepted the
Respondent's contention and allowed the writ petition holding that the DPC
having modulated the rating ofR.S. Virk from 'good' to 'very good', failure
to do so in the case of respondent in similar circumstances would amount to
p unfair and hostile discrimination. He also held that the appellants failed to
prove that those who were promoted had a better service record than
respondent. He, however, noted that as the respondent had been promoted
as Second-in-Command (during the pendency of the writ petition), all that
survived for consideration was whether respondent was entitled to be promoted
from an earlier date. He directed the appellants to include the name of the
G respondent in the approved list of Assistant Commandants for appointment
to the rank of Second-in-Command from the date when anyone junior to him
was promoted as Second-in-Command (in pursuance of the selection by the
DPC on 13.6.1990), with all consequential benefits.

8. The said judgment dated 11.2.1992 was challenged by the appellants
H
U.0.1 v. A.K. NARULA [RAVEENDRAN, J.) 269
' )
herein in LPA No.586 of 1992. The Division Bench found that in the case of A
·-- R. S. Virk (who was senior to respondent in the feeder post) for the year 1988-
89, the accepting authority had rated him as 'good', but DPC had upgraded
the rating as 'very good' on the ground that the reporting authority and the
reviewing authority had rated him as 'very good', and the accepting authority
had failed to record any reason for downgrading him to 'good'. The Division
Bench found that in the case of Respondent for the year 1987-88, the reviewing
B
authority had graded him a!. 'very good' whereas the accepting authority had
graded him as 'good' without assigning any reason. The Division Bench was
\.. of the view that no plausible explanation was disclosed for applying different
yardsticks to R.S. Virk and Respondent, that application of a different yardstick
to Respondent would amount to unfair treatment, and that ifthe same yardstick c
applied in the case of R S Virk, had been applied to Respondent, the DPC
would have rated the Respondent also as 'very good' instead of 'good'. The
Division Bench, however, felt that the learned Single Judge ought not to have
issued a direction to include the name of Respondent in the approved list
(and that too from the date when a person junior to him was promoted) and
ought to have left it to DPC to reconsider the matter. The Division Bench, D
therefore, allowed the appeal in part by judgment dated 12.7.2001, set aside
~ the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the DPC to reconsider the
respondent's case, keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment
while adjudging his suitability. The Division Bench also observed that if on
reconsideration the respondent was found suitable, he shall be promoted with E
retrospective effect from the date on which R.S. Virk was promoted as Second-
in-Command, and should be given all consequential benefits.

9. Pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench, a review DPC was
convened on 4.12.2003. It reconsidered the case of the respondent. It held
that there was no ground to upgrade his rating for 1987-88 from 'good' to F
'very good'. Consequently, the overall rating of Respondent by the DPC
remained 'good' and DPC did not recommend him for promotio:t with respect
to the DPC dated 13.6.1990. We extract below the reasoning given by the
reviewDPC:

"In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Court, the ACRs G
for the period from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1990 in respect of Shri A.K. Narula
and Shri R.S. Virk have been duly scrutinized by the DPC. Scrutiny of
records reveals that ACR ofShri A.K. Narula for the year 1987-88 is
.·~
in two parts. The first part is for 6 months from 1.4.1987 to 26.9.1987
in which he was graded "Good" by Reporting Officer, "Very Good" by
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A Reviewing' Officer and "Good" by Accepting Officer whereas, in the
second part of ACR for a period of six months from 3.10.1987 to
31.3 .1988, Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer
all had rated him as "Good". Having gone through all these facts, the
Review DPC is of the view that the overall performance ofShri A.K.
Narula during the year 1987-88 was "Good" only. His case is not
B identical to that of Shri R.S. Virk since his ACR was for full one year
and Reporting and Reviewing Officer had graded him as "Very Good"
and it was the final Accepting Authority who had graded him as
"Good" without any reasons. Hence, no case is made out to upgrade
the report of Shri A.K. Narula from "Good" to "Very Good"."
c The competent authority approved the recommendations of the review DPC
and the decision was communicated by order dated 5.1.2004.

IO. This led to the second round of litigation. The respondent filed
W.P. No.4455 of2004 wherein he sought quashing of the order dated 5.1.2004
D and a direction to the appellant to promote him to the rank of Second-in-
command with reference to DPC held on 13.6.1990 with all consequential ..
benefits. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition by •
judgment and order dated 27.5.2005. The Division Bench held that the judgment
dated 12. 7.200 I of the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation had
held that the respondent was not treated fairly and had specifically directed
E the DPC tc reconsider his case in the light of its observations; that the said
decision attained finality as the SLP filed by Appellants against the said
judgment dated 12.7.2001 was dismissed by this Court on I 1:8.2003; that
inspite of the above, the review DPC had reiterated its earlier decision and
thereby failed to comply with the observations in the judgment dated 12.7.2001;
p and that therefore, the decision of the review DPC could not be upheld. The
High Court, ther~fore, quashed the order dated 5.1.2004 and directed the
appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion with
reference to the DPC held on 13.6.1990 by treating the entry for the year 1987-
88 as 'very good'. The court also directed that respondent shall be granted
all consequential reliefs. The said decision is challenged in this appeal by
G special leave.

11. On the contentions urged, two questions arise for consideration:

(i) · Whether the case of respondent was similar to or identical with
that of R.S. Virk and, consequently, DPC ought to have treated
H
U.O.I v. A.K. NARULA [RA VEENDRAN, J.) 271
the CR ofrespondent for the year 1987-88 as 'very good' thereby A
upgrading the overall grading from 'good' to 'very good'.

(ii) Whether the decision dated 12.7.2001 in the first round of litigation
had concluded the issue of entitlement of the respondent to the
rating of 'very good' for 1987-88 and consequently, all that was
required of the review DPC was to include him in the approved B
list of Assistant Commandants with the overall rating of 'very
good' and promote him to the rank of Second-in-Command' with
reference to DPC dated 13.6.1990?

Re : Question (i) :

12. R.S. Virk had the rating of 'good' for 1985-86 and 1988-89. He had
c
three 'very good' ratings and two 'good' rating during the five year period
between 1985-86 and 1989-90. The records ofR.S. Virk disclosed that for the
year 1988-89, the reporting authority had graded him as 'very good'; the
reviewing authority had concurred and also rated him as 'very good'; but the
accepting authority had downgraded his rating from 'very good' to 'good' D
without assigning any reason for not accepting the concurrent rating of 'very
good' by the reporting authority and reviewing authority. DPC was, therefore,
of the view that where both the reporting authority and reviewing authority
had graded the performance of R. S. Virk as 'very good', the accepting
authority was not justified in downgrading the rating without assigning any E
reason. Therefore exercising the power given under the guidelines contained
in the OM dated 10.3.1989, DPC modulated his rating for that year as 'very
good'. As a consequence, the 'very good' rating of R.S. Virk increased from
three to four, resulting in upgradation of overall DPC rating from 'good' to
'very good'.
F
13. The respondent had also secured three 'very good' ratings for 1986-
87, 1988-89 and 1989-90. For the other two years; that is for the years 1985-
i 86 and 1987-88, the respondent had secured the rating of 'good'. The
·respondent contended that his rating for 1987-88 was similar to that of R.S.
Virk for 1988-89 as the accepting authority had downgraded his rating without
assigning any reason, and therefore, DPC ought to have modulated his rating G
for 1987-88 as 'very good'. On careful consideration, we find that respondent's
case was different from that of R. S. Virk. The CR of respondent for the year
1987-88 consisted of two parts. For the first half period, that is, from 1.4.1987
to 26.9.1987, the reporting authority had graded him as 'good' and reviewing
authority had graded him as 'very good' and the accepting authority had H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.
l

A graded him as 'good'. In regard to the second half, that is, 3.10.1987 to
--?r-
31.3.1988, all the three authorities (reporting authority, reviewing authority
and the accepting authority) had rated him as only 'good'. There was no
t=
question of reviewing or upgrading the rating of respondent for the second
•
half of 1987-88, as all the three authorities had concurrently graded him as
'good'. Even in regard to the first half of that year (1.4.1987 to 26.9.1987),
B unlike the case of R.S. Virk where both the reporting authority and the
reviewing authority had unanimously given the rating 'very good', the
reporting authority had rated the respondent as 'good' and the reviewing
authority had rated him as 'very good'; and in view of civergence between ...\--
the reporting authority and reviewing authority, the accepting authority chose
c to rate him as 'good'. The DPC, on assessment, had rightly found that there
was no case for revising the grading of respondent. The review DPC also ~
I
found that the facts of respondent's case were different from that of R.S. Virk. ~
The CRs demonstrated that R.S.Virk deserved upgrading and respondent did
not.
•
j....

D 14. The guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to the DPC
by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in
the CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the
CRs. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance
,
of each candi~ate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks
and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on
E
the ground of bias, malafides or arbitrariness, the selection calls for interference.
Where the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by
applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no p
F
arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the DPC, the court will not
interfere (vide State Bank of India v. Mohd Mynuddin, (1987] 4 SCC 486,
F Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev, (1988] 2 SCC 242 and
Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2000] 8 SCC 395). The review DPC ¥"'
reconsidered the matter and has given detailed reasons as to why the case .J.
of the respondent was not similar to that of R S Virk. If in those circumstances, ...
the Review DPC decided not to change the grading of the respondent for the
period l.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 from 'good' to 'very good', the overall grading
G of the respondent continued to remain as 'good'. There was no question of
moving him from the block of officers with the overall rating of 'good' to the
block of officers with the overall rating of 'very good' and promoting him with
reference to the DPC dated 13.6.1990. In the absence of any allegation ofmala )..- .
fide or bias against the DPC and in the absence of any arbitrariness in the
(
H manner in which assessment has been made, the High Court was not justified
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A downgrading of the rating of R. S. Virk for 1988-89, the DPC should modulate
the rating of respondent for 1987-88 as 'very good' instead of 'good', as was
done in the case ofR.S.Virk. The direction by the Division Bench that 'if on
reconsideration, the responde_nt is found suitable, then he shall be promoted
with retrospective effect' and that 'DPC shall reconsider his case• make it
B clear that DPC was required to examine whether the case of respondent was
identical to that of R. S. Virk. Only if the facts were the same, respondent was
entitled to be treated in a manner similar to R.S.Virk. The Review DPC was,
therefore, entitled to examine the case of respondent on merits and take a
decision.

C Conclusion :

18. In view of our finding that the case of respondent was different from
that of R.S.Virk, the deCision of review DPC that the respondent did not
deserve •ipgradation from 'good' to 'very good', deserves to be upheld.

D 19. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated
27.5.2-005 passed by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition quashing
~ I
the decision of the review DPC. Parties to bear their respective costs. r

NJ. Appeal allowed.