Supreme Court of India
VINOD KUMAR SANGALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 294
- Decided
- 25 April 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S C AGRAWAL
Holding
The DPC must conduct separate year‑wise selections as mandated by the Office Memorandum; the six officers’ selections stand, but a fresh DPC must be convened to consider the appellant for the 1980, 1982 and 1983 vacancies, and his reversion will be revoked if he is selected.
Summary
Vinod Kumar Sangal, a Junior Technical Assistant in the Geological Survey of India, was promoted to Senior Technical Assistant in 1978 but declined the posting, later receiving an ad‑hoc promotion in 1980. When the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) finally met in 1985, it selected six officers for promotion by treating all vacancies that had arisen between 1980 and 1985 as a single pool, contrary to the Office Memorandum of 24 December 1980 which required separate year‑wise selections. Sangal was not selected and was reverted to his former post in February 1985. He challenged the reversion, arguing that the DPC’s “bunching” of vacancies enlarged the field of choice and prejudiced his chances. The Supreme Court held that the DPC must follow the memorandum’s procedure of determining vacancies year‑wise and selecting officers accordingly; however, the selections of the six officers already made could not be disturbed. The Court directed the respondents to convene a fresh DPC to consider Sangal for the vacancies of 1980, 1982 and 1983, and if he is selected his reversion will be revoked; otherwise the reversion stands. The appeal was allowed and costs awarded to the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether the DPC’s selection in 1985, which combined vacancies from 1980‑1985, violated the Office Memorandum dated 24 December 1980 requiring separate year‑wise selections.
- Whether the appellant’s reversion order can be set aside and he be considered for promotion against the specific vacancies of 1980, 1982 and 1983.
- Whether the selections of the six officers made in 1985 can be disturbed.
Subjects
Departmental Promotion Committeepromotionbunching of vacanciesfield of choicereversionad hoc promotionOffice Memorandum 24 December 1980selection procedure
Judgment
A VINOD KUMAR SANGAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
APRIL 25, 1995
B (S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Se1Vice Law: I
~
Promotion-Bunching of vacancies arising in different years-Meeting
of Departmental Promotion Committee held after six years-DPC bunched
c all vacancies, those arising in previous years as also in cu"ent year, and made
selections-Held, as per Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980, issued by
Geological Su!Vey of India, if DPC is unable to meet at regular inte1Vals for
reasons beyond control, it shall, when it first meets, determine actual number
of regular vacancies in each of previous years and those proposed to be filled
D up in cu"ent year separately and consider for selection on yearly basis those
officers only who would be eligible with reference to vacancies of each year.
The appellant, a Junior Technical Assistant in the Geological Survey
of India, was, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion
Committee, promoted and posted as Senior Technical Assistant in the
E North Eastern Region at Shillong. Since the appellant declined to join at
Shillong, the offer was cancelled in February 1980. In August 1980, he was
granted ad hoc promotion as Sr. Technical Assistant and was posted in
the Central Region at Nagpur. The Departmental Promotion Committee
(D.P.C.) made selections for promotion on regular basis in 1985, and since
F the appellant could not be selected, he was reverted to his former post with
effect from 28th February 1985. The writ petition filed by the appellant in
the High Court to challenge the Order dated 28th February, 1985 for his
reversion, was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which
dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special
leave.
G
It was contended for the appellant that the DPC having not met in
the years 1979 to 1984, it committed an error in bunching together all the i
those vacancies occurred during these years whicb resulted in enlarging
the field of choice and thereby prejudicially affecting the chances of selec-
H tion of the appellant. The respondents pleaded that the Geological Survey
734
VINOD KUMAR SANGAL v. U.0.1. 735
or India could not propose or effect promotions during the years 1979 to A
1984 as it was considering regionalisation or the Department and the
question of allocation or posts of different categories to the different
appointing authorities under each region was under process and, there·
fore, it made ad hoc appointments in various cadres, according to the
requirement as per local seniority, till regular selection was made by the B
DPC.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. In the circumstances, non-holding of ·the DPC during
the period the reorganisation of the Department was under process may C
be justified. But when the DPC met in 1985, it was required to make
selections on yearly basis for the vacancies of each particular year as per
the Office Memorandum dated December 24, 1980 which clearly postulates
that where the DPC is unable to meet at regular intervals for reasons
beyond control the first DPC that meets thereafter shall determine the D
actual number or regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous
year/years and those proposed to be filled up in the current year separately
and consider in respect of each ~f the years those officers only who would
be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year
starting with the earliest year onwards and prepare a selection list for each
or the years starting with the earliest year onwards and on that basis E
prepare a consolidated select list. (740-E to GI
1.2. The affidavit filed on behalf or the respondents indicates that
one regular vacancy occurred in the year 1980, which was filled up by ad
hoc appointment ohhe appellant; the next single vacancy that occurred in F
1982 and three vacancies those occurred in the year 1983 were also filled
up on ad hoc basis. On December 22, 1984 the Central Region, on account
of regionalisation of Group' C Cadre, got allotment of six vacancies of
Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) to be filled np by promotion and for
that purpose the DPC met on January 15, 1985 and made selection for all
6 promotional vacancies. The DPC appears to have bunched together all G
the vacancies for the years 1980 to 1985 and has made one selection for
the 6 promotional vacancies and this has resulted in enlargement of the
field of choice for the purpose of selection. This mode of selection in
disregard of the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated
December 24, 1980 appears to have operated to the prejudice of the H
r
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.
A appellant because if separate selection had been made for the vacancies
which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983, the field of choice would
have been much more restricted and the appellant would have had better
chances of being selected. [741-B to E]
1.3. The 6 persons selected for promotion by the DPC in 1985 are
B not parties in these proceedings. Their selection cannot, therefore, be
disturbed. The respondents shall, without disturbing the selections already
made, convene a DPC for considering the appellant for selection for
promotion against the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 (
and 1983 separately as per the Office Memorandum dated December 24,
C 1980. In case the appellant is selected for such promotion against any of
these vacancies, his reversion would stand revoked and he would be
regularly promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling)
with all consequential benefits with effect from the date when 6 persons
selected in 1985 were so promoted. Otherwise his reversion under order
dated February 18, 1985 would remain undisturbed. [741-F to H, 742-A]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4721 of y
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.90 of the Central Ad-
E ministrative Tribunal, New Bombay Bench in T.R.(N) No. 343 of 1987.
Vinod Kumar Sangal, In-person for the Appellant.
V.C. Mahajan, Arvind Kumar Sharma and Smt. Indu Goswami for '
the Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
We have heard the appellant who is appearing in person and the
G learned counsel for the respondents.
The appellant joined the Geological Survey of India (for short 'GS!')
as Drilling Assistant on July 12, 1965. The said post was re-designated as
Junior Technical Assistant. As per recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC'), by order dated November le,
H 1978, he was promoted and posted as Senior Technical Assistant ;n the
VINODKUMARSANGALv. U.0.1.[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 737
North Eastern Region at Shillong. The appellant requested for a posting A
in the Central Region at Nagpur itself but the said request was not
accepted. The said promotion of the appellant was kept upon for the
appellant to join at Shillong Office till February 22, 1980 on which date the
said offer was cancelled by the competent authority. In August 1980 the
appellant was granted ad hoc promotion to the post of Senior Technical B
Assistant and he was posted in the Central Region at Nagpur. He con-
tinued to hold the said post till the order dated February 18, 1985 whereby
he was reverted to the post of Junior Technical Assistant with effect from
February 28, 1985: The said order of reversion was passed on account of
the appellant having not been selected for promotion on regular basis to
the post of Senior Technical Assistant by the DPC which met in 1985. C
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of reversion the appellant filed a Writ
Petition (Writ Petition No. 395 of 1985) in the High Court at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench. The said Writ Petition was transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') and it was registered as Transfer Petition No. 343 of 1987. D
Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that according to the Rules
the DPC should meet every year but in the present case the DPC did not
meet during the period from 1979 to 1984 and, therefore, proceedings of
the DPC which met in 1985 were liable to be quashed. The Tribunal,
·however, rejected the said contention and dismissed the said petition by
judgment dated August 8, 1990. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of E
the Tribunal the appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant has placed reliance on the Office Memorandum dated
December 24, 1980 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
(Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) on the subject F
"Principles for promotion to 'Selection' posts" wherein it is stated that in a
number of cases the meeting of the DPC are not held annually as required
even though there were vacancies resulting in the bunching of vacancies
which in turn enlarged the field of choice and upset the relative seniority
positions in the higher grade on account of supersessions and after con-
sidering the various points which were raised by various Ministries/Depart- G
ments the following instructions were issued :
"3. Zone of consideration for promotion to posts filled by Selection:
Reference is invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs (New Depart-
ment of Personnel and A.R.) O.M. No. 1/4- 55/-RPS dated H
r
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.
A 13.5.1967 laying down certain principles for promotion. In the
operation of these principles it has been observed that the absence
of clearly defined limits on the context of the field of choice has
led to lack of uniformity in the ptactices being followed by the
DPCs. Similarly, it is felt that a large field of choice might result
in excessive supersessions. Again, despite repeated instructions of
B the Government to hold D PCs annually there have been quite a
few cases of delays resulting in vacancies being bunched. This
would enlarge the field of choice and upset the relative seniority
positions in the higher post with reference to the positions which (
would not have resulted had the DPCs met at the appropriate time.
c In view of these considerations it has been decided in consultation
with the UPSC as under in supersession of this Department's O.M.
No. 1/4/55-RPS dated 16.5.1957 and all other documents having
any bearing on the matter herein dealt with.
(a) The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for the
D purpose of determining the number of officers who should be
considered from out of these eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) 'f''
restrict the field of choice as under, with reference to the number
of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filld in the year.
E No. of Vacancies No. of Officer to be considered.
(1) (2)
1 5
2 8
3 10
F 4 or more Three times the nnmber of vacanices
(b) Where, however, the number of eligible officers in the feeder
grade(s) is less than the number of Col.(2) above, all the officers
so eligible should be considered.
G ( c) Where adequate number of SC/ST candidates are not available
within the normal field of choice as above, the field of choice may ,
be extended to 5 times the number.
4. Preparation of year wise panels by DPC where they have not met
H for a number of years.
VINOD KUMAR SANGALv. U.0.l. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 739
Instructions already exist that DPCs should meet at regular annual A
-.,- intervals for the preparation of select list and where no such
meeting is held in any year, the appointing authority should record
a certificate that there were no vacancies to be filled during the
year. Administrative Ministries should obtain periodical informa-
lion/certificates on the regular holding of DPCs.
B
(b) Where, however, for reasons beyond control, D PC could not
be held in any year(s) even though the vacancies arise during that
year (or years), the first DPC that meets thereafter should follow
the following procedure:
(i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that
c
arose in each of the previous year/years immediately and the
actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in
the current year separately.
(ii) Consider in respect of each of the years those officers D
>( ' only who would be within the field of choice with reference
to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year
onwards.
(iii) Prepare a 'Selection list' for each of the years starting
with the earliest year onwards. E
(iv) Prepare a consolidated 'Select list' by placing the select
list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on."
i
~ The submission of the appellant is that apart from the fact that no
F
D PC was held during the year 1979 to 1984, the D PC which met in 1985
did not make the selection according to the vacancies which occurred in
each year during the period 1979 to 1985 and it bunched together all the
vacancies that occurred during the years 1979 to 1985 and made the
selection for all those vacancies which resulted in enlarging the field of
choice and thereby prejudicially affecting the chances of selection of the G
appellant.
J On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted tliat GS! actively
considered the regionalisation of the Department in view of the all India
character of the Department and that the question of allocation of posts H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.
A of different categories to the different appointing authorities under each
Region was under process and hence no promotion could be proposed or
effected but, as a matter of nature of work and in public interest, ad hoc
appointments were made in various cadres according to the requirement
as per local seniority and accordingly the appellant was also given ad hoc
B promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) in August
1980 and that such ad hoc appointments were cancelled in 1985 when the
Department could arrive at actual regular vacancies in the Department
after reorganisation and regular selection was made by the DPC for the (
vacancies. In the counter affidavit of Anil Joshi filed on behalf of the
respondent it is stated that out of 86 posts of Senior Technical Assistant
C which were available in the Central Region of GSI, 6 posts occurred in the
Central Region Office as per letter dated December 22, 1984 of the head
Office of GSI and that out of those 6 posts one post was reserved for SC/ST
candidate and as per the Recruitment Rules in force the post of Senior
Technical Assistant (Drilling) is to be ftlled in the ratio of 20% by direct
D recruitment and 80% by promotion from the grade of Junfor Technical
Assistant (Drilling) with 5 years regular service in the grade and that the
name of the appellant at serial no. 1 alongwith other candidates was placed
before the DPC which was constituted by letter dated January 8, 1985.
E In view of the aforesaid explanation that has been offered by the
respondents for non-holding of the DPC during the period the reorganisa-
tion of the Department was under process may be justified. But when the
DPC met in 1985 was it not required to make the selections on yearly basis
for the vacancies of each particular year? The Office Memorandum dated
December 24, 1980 clearly postulates that where the DPC is unable to meet
F
on regular intervals for reasons beyond control the first DPC that meets
thereafter shall determine the actual number of regular vacancies that
arose in each of the previous year/years and the actual number of regular
vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately and consider
in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the
G field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with
the earliest year onwards and prepare a selection list for each of the years
starting with the earliest year onwards and on that basis prepare a con-
solidated select list. From the affidavit of AK. Bhandari, Director, GS!
dated March 23, 1995, filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that
H one regular vacancy occurred in the year 1980 which was filled .by ad hoc
411
I
'
VINOD KUMAR SANGAL v, U,OJ, [S,C AGRAWAL, J,] 741
appointment of the appellant and the next single vacancy occurred in 1982 A
which was also filled up on ad hoc basis and that three vacancies occurred
in the year 1983 which were also filled up on ad hoc basis. It has also been
stated in the said affidavit that on December 22, 1984 the Central Region
got allotment of seven vacancies of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) -
6 promotion and one direct recruit - on account of regionalisation of Group B
'C' cadre and that for making selection for 6 posts to be filled by promotion
the DPC met on January 15, 1985 and made selection for all 6 promotional
va~~~~-
-u is not the case of the respondents that the DPC made separate
selection for the vacancies for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and the DPC C
appears to have bunched together all the vacancies for the years 1980 to.
1985 and has made one selection for the 6 promotional vacancies and this
has resulted in enlargement of the field of choice for the purpose of
selection, The grievance of the appellant is that this mode of selection in
disregard of the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated D
December 24, 1980 operated to his prejudice appears to be justified
because if separate selection had been made for the vacancies which
occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 the field of choice would have
been much more restricted and the appellant would have had better
chances of being selected.
E
The 6 persons who were selected by the DPC in 1985 for promotion
\
'- to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) are not parties in these
proceedings, Their selection cannot, therefore, be disturbed, Therefore,
without disturbing the selection of the 6 officers who were selected by the
DPC in 1985 for the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling), the F
respondents are directed to convene a DPC for considering the appellant
for selection for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant
(Driliing) against the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and
1983, The said DPC shall consider the appellant for such selection for the
vacancies for each of these years separately as per the Office Memorandum G
dated December 24, 1980. In case the appellant is selected for such
promotion against any of these vacancies, the reversion of the appellant
made by order dated February 18, 1985 would stand revoked and he would
be regularly promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling)
with all consequential benefits with effect from the date when 6 persons H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.CR.
A who were selected by the DPC in 1985 were so promoted on the post of
Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling). In case the appellant is not selected r
by the DPC for any of the vacancies, his reversion under order dated
February 18, 1985 would remain undisturbed. The DPC should be con-
vened within a period of four months.
B The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant would be
entitled to his costs. The said costs are fixed at Rs. 5000.
R.P. Appeal allowed. (
y
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Departmental Promotion Committee"Sign in to search