UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS GOPAL MEENA & ORS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS GOPAL MEENA & ORS


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3314 OF 2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOPAL MEENA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5933 OF 2010
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9436 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present three appeals have been preferred by the Union of
India; two appeals viz. Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010 and Civil
Appeal No. 5933 of 2010 arise out of an order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal1
, affirmed by the High Court of Delhi and
High Court of Punjab & Haryana, directing separate zone of
consideration for promotion of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
candidates to the post of Superintendent in the Customs and
1 For short, the ‘Tribunal’
1
Central Excise Commissionerate from the post of Inspector, whereas
the Civil Appeal No. 9436 of 2010 is directed against a similar
direction by the High Court of Delhi but in respect of Indo-Tibetan
Border Police for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant
from the post of Subedar Major Stenographer.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are quoted from the Civil Appeal
No. 3314 of 2010. The grievance of the applicants2
, belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes, was that there is backlog of vacancies for the post
of Superintendent which have not been filled up for the reason that
the candidates are not available within the zone of consideration.
Therefore, to fill up the 29 posts of Superintendent, it was prayed
that a separate zone of consideration be created for the Scheduled
Tribe candidates so that the vacancies in the cadre of
Superintendent meant for them could be filled up.
3. The Tribunal found that the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983
which restricted the zone of consideration to five times of the posts
to be illegal. Reliance was placed upon the orders passed by this
Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan
Sangh v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.
3
; C.D. Bhatia &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
4
; and, Basudeo Anil & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
5 wherein the Office Memorandum dated
30.9.1983 restricting the zone of consideration was found to be
illegal.
2 For short, the ‘candidates’
3 Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988 decided on 23.11.1994
4 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14566 of 1995 decided on 20.10.1995
5 Civil Appeal No. 1194 of 1992 decided on 7.9.2000
2
4. The attention of the Court was drawn to the earlier Office
Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 which contemplated that the zone
of consideration can be extended to five times the number of
vacancies and the Scheduled Tribe candidates (and not any other)
coming within the extended field of choice, should also be
considered against the vacancies reserved for them. The relevant
extract reads thus:
“(a) The Department Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for
'the purpose of determining the number of officers who
should be considered from out of those eligible officers in the
feeder grade(s) restrict the field of choice as under, with
reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed
to be filled in the year.
No. of vacancies No. of officers to be considered
(1) (2)
1 5
2 8
3 10
4 or more three times the number of vacancies
(b) Where, however, the number of eligible officer in the
feeder grade(s) is less than the number in Col. (2) above, all
the officers so eligible should be considered.
(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 of
vacancies and the SC/ST candidates (and not any other)
coming within the extended field of choice, should also be
considered against the vacancies reserved for them.
Officers belonging to SC/ST selected for promotion against
vacancies reserved for them from out of the extended field of
choice under sub para (e) above, would however be placed en
bloc below all the other officers selected from within the
normal field of choice.”
5. It is thereafter, an Office Memorandum was issued on 30.4.1983 for
3
regulating ad-hoc promotions for consideration of cases for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates with reference to
an earlier Office Memorandum dated 6.4.1979. The relevant clauses
read thus:
“3. Since ad hoc promotions are made on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness, all the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidates covered in the relevant seniority list within
the total number of such vacancies against which ad hoc
promotions are to be made, should be considered in the order
of their general seniority as per the gradation list, on the
principle of seniority-cum-fitness and if they are not adjudged
unfit, they should all be promoted on adhoc basis.
4. If, however, the number of SC/ST candidates found fit
within the range of actual vacancies is less than the number
of vacancies identified as falling to their share if the
vacancies were filled on a regular basis vide (2) above then
additional SC/ST candidates to the extent requested should
be located by going down the seniority list, provided they are
eligible and found fit for such ad hoc appointment. This
procedure should be adopted on every occasion on which ad
hoc appointment is resorted to.
xx xx xx
7. For regular promotions when eventually made the
procedures and instructions laid down in the Brochure will
continue to apply.”
6. Another Office Memorandum was issued on 30.9.1983 pertaining to
ad-hoc promotion by the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms wherein the zone of consideration for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was restricted up
to five times. The relevant clause reads thus:
“2. It has not been decided that the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates who are within the
number of actual vacancies should be considered in
accordance with their general seniority on the principle of
4
seniority cum fitness and if they are not adjudged unfit, they
should all be promoted on ad hoc basis. If, however, the
number of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates
found fit within the range of actual vacancies is less than the
number of vacancies identified as falling to their share, than
additional Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates to
the extent required should be located by going down the
seniority list but within 5 times the number of vacancies
being filled on a particular occasion, subject, of course, to
their eligibility and fitness.”
7. The order in Basudeo Anil dealt with Office Memorandums dated
30.4.1983 and 30.9.1983 wherein the appeal was allowed and it was
held that the condition of restricting the number of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe candidates to five times of the total number of
such vacancies as provided in Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983
is not legal. It was observed as under:
“In the aforesaid premises, the question for consideration is
whether by the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 30th
September, 1983 can it be said that the rights of the reserved
category candidates to get their due has been taken away. It
is undisputed that in the service in question there has been a
specified percentage of reservation, and in fact that was
reflected also in the Office Memorandum of April, 1983, which
provided for the procedure to be adopted for appointment of
the Vice-Principal on ad-hoc basis. We see no reason for
issuance of the second Memorandum of the 30th September,
1983, which in fact taken away the rights conferred upon the
reserved category candidates under the Office Memorandum
of the 30th April, 1983, and which is also in accordance with
the constitutional mandate. In that view of the matter, we
quash the subsequent Office memorandum dated 30th
September, 1983 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the
Department of Personnel and allow this appeal.”
8. The Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983 was thus withdrawn on
15.3.2002 in view of the judgment of this Court in Basudeo Anil
and it was held that ad-hoc promotions would be regulated as per
5
instructions dated 30.4.1983. The relevant clause of Office
Memorandum dated 15.3.2002 reads thus:
“2. The Supreme Court in its judgement dated 7 .9.2000 in
the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shri. Basudeo Anil
and others (Civil Appeal No.1194/1992) has quashed the
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms O.M.
No.36011/14/83- Estt.(SCT) dated 30.9.1983. It has,
therefore, been decided to withdraw the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms' O,M. No.36011/14/83-
Estt.(SCT) dated 30.9.1983 with immediate effect. Thus
claims of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe candidates in
the matter of ad hoc promotions would henceforth be
regulated as per instructions contained in Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms' O.M.No.36011/14/83-
Estt.(SCT) dated 30.4.1983.”
9. An Office Memorandum was issued on 22.4.1992 wherein zone of
consideration of officers for promotion by selection was prescribed
in continuation of Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980. The
relevant extract reads thus:
“In this Department's O.M. No. 2201 1/3/76-Estt. (D) dated
the 24th December, 1980 the zone of consideration of officers
for promotion by selection was prescribed as under:-
No. of vacancies No. of officers to be considered
1 5
2 8
3 10
4 or more three times the number of vacancies
It was also laid down that where adequate number of SC/ST
candidates are not available within the normal field of choice
as indicated above, the field of choice may be extended to
five times the number of vacancies and the SC/ST (and not
any other) coming within me extended field of choice be
considered against the vacancies reserved for them. This
provision relating to an extended zone of five times the
number of vacancies in respect of SC/ST has been retained in
O.M. No, 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dated 10.3.89 and 10.4.89 and
also in O.M No 22011/1/90-Estt. (D) dated 12.10.90 in which
the normal zone of consideration for general category was
reduced for vacancies numbering 5 and above,
6
2. It is hereby clarified that the intention is to have an
extended zone of five times the number of vacancies in all
cases where adequate number of SC/ST candidates are not
available in the normal zone of a smaller size. For a single
vacancy, since the normal zone itself is 5 i.e. five times the
number of vacancies there is no intention to extend the zone.
The normal zone and the extended zone for vacancies will
accordingly be as follows :
No. of vacancies Normal Zone Zone for
consideration for
SC/ST
1 5 5
2 8 10
3 10 15
4 12 20
5 and above Twice the number of
vacancies + 4
5 times the
number of
vacancies
10. Subsequently, another Office Memorandum was issued on 6.1.2006.
It was communicated after review of the size of zone of
consideration as under:
“The size of zone of consideration for, promotion by
'selection' as prescribed vide DoPT O.M. No. 22011/1/90-
Estt.D dated 12th October 1990 read with O.M. No. 22011 /
1/90-Estt- (D) dated 22nd April 1992 is as under:
No. of vacancies Normal size of zone
of consideration
Extended Zone of
consideration for
SC/ST
1 5 5
2 8 10
3 10 15
4 12 20
5 and above Twice the number of
vacancies + 4
5 times the
number of
vacancies
xx xx xx
2. ...............Accordingly, a need has arisen for review
of the size of zone of consideration. Having a size of zone of
7
consideration larger than is necessary in the revised context
would lead to unnecessary paper work, which may also lead
to delay in convening DPCs. However, the zone of
consideration has still to be wide enough to cater to the
needs of the Department/cadre authorities for giving an
extended panel against empanelled officers who are on
deputation or are expected to proceed shortly; who have
retired or will be retiring in the course of the vacancy year or
who have refused promotion and are under debarment. The
size should also be sufficient to take care of officers in the
feeder grade whose cases are to be placed in 'sealed cover'
and also of those who do not meet the prescribed benchmark.
Thus, there is a need for optimizing the size of zone of
consideration.
3. The matter has been considered carefully. Keeping in view
the considerations in para-2 above, it has been decided to
modify the existing provisions relating to size of zone of
consideration as under:”
11. The argument of Ms. Bhati is that the order in U.P. Rajya Vidyut
Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan Sangh is a consent order,
which cannot be treated as precedent, which is evident from the
following operative part of the order:
“In view of the averments made in the affidavit quoted above,
it is not necessary for us to go into the various questions
canvassed before us. The contentions of the appellants before
us have been substantially met with by the Board. In view of
the stand taken by the Board in its aforesaid affidavit, the
judgement of the High Court was become redundant and it
shall not be operative. The appeal is disposed of with no order
as to costs.”
12. In C.D. Bhatia, this Court had passed an order based upon the
order in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan
Sangh giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government
in order to seek enforcement of the law laid down. The operative
8
part of the said order is as under:
“We are, however, of the view that the law laid down by this
Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad's Case is binding on all the
authorities including the Union of India. The petitioner may, if
so advised, approach the Government seeking enforcement
of the law laid by this Court. Special leave petitions are
disposed of.”
13. It is contended that the order in C.D. Bhatia is an order in a Special
Leave Petition affirming an order passed by the Tribunal, thus
cannot be treated to be a precedent. Reliance is placed upon an
order passed by this Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
6
,
and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.
7
. It was further argued that both orders,
as referred above, were referred to in Basudeo Anil, but the fact
that order in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari
Kalyan Sangh was based upon a concession and the order in C.D.
Bhatia was an order in Special Leave Petition was not brought to
the notice of the Court. Moreover, the Office Memorandums dated
24.12.1980, and dated 22.4.1992 dealing with substantive
promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee were not
brought to the notice of the Court.
14. It has been further contended that there cannot be a separate zone
of consideration for each category of the officials. The zone of
consideration is in respect of the candidates falling in the seniority
list. The candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe were given relaxation to extend zone of consideration up to
6 (2000) 6 SCC 359
7 (2019) 4 SCC 376
9
five times of the vacancies. It is argued that the effect of the order
passed by the High Court would be that all eligible candidates, at
whatever position in the seniority list, would fall within the zone of
consideration, though they may be lowest in the list. Such creation
of zone of consideration is not in consonance with the efficiency in
the service. Still further, enlarging the zone of consideration for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe to five times cannot be said to
be arbitrary, irrational or illegal, which could be struck down in
exercise of power of judicial review.
15. The issue in Basudeo Anil was restricted to the Office
Memorandum dated 30.9.1983 which was a clarification to the
Office Memorandum dated 30.4.1983 in respect of ad-hoc
promotions. The regular or substantive promotions have to be
carried by Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 or other Office
Memorandums issued from time to time.
16. The Office Memorandum dated 30.4.1983 was not to amend the
Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980. This OM was in reference to
Office Memorandum dated 16.4.1979 asking the Departments to
resort to ad-hoc promotions, when it becomes inescapable in public
interest. For regular promotions, the procedural instructions laid
down in the brochure was to apply (Clause 7 of the OM dated
30.4.1983). Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 30.4.1983
was only dealing with ad-hoc promotions and not with substantive
promotions. Hence, the office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980
would continue to apply in respect of substantive promotions.
10
17. On the other hand, Dr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel for the candidates
quoted the order passed by the High Court and contended that
there are about 29 posts of Superintendent in the Custom and
Central Excise Commissionerate which are required to be filled up
by Scheduled Tribe candidates. The said posts have not been filled
up only for the reason that reasonable number of Scheduled Tribe
candidates do not come within the zone of consideration. Therefore,
the order of the High Court is fair and reasonable so as to give
effective meaning to the policy of reservation for the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Reliance is based upon the three orders,
as mentioned above. In addition thereto, reliance has been placed
upon a judgment of this Court reported as R.K. Sabharwal & Ors.
v. State of Punjab & Ors.
8
 to contend that filling of posts or
vacancies through reservation has to be post-based and that the
roster points meant for Scheduled Tribes should only be filled by the
Scheduled Tribes alone. Thus, applying the principle of reservation,
general category and reserved category have to be treated
separately and without clubbing. It was thus argued that there has
to be a separate zone for each category i.e., for general, Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe, rather than the common seniority list
which is prevalent for determining zone of consideration for
promotion. Accordingly, a separate zone of consideration for the
Scheduled Tribe candidates is in fact the only way to give effect to
the reservation policy.
8 (1995) 2 SCC 745
11
18. It is also contended that after the year 2002, if the backlog
vacancies are not filled up, the Union can de-reserve those
vacancies, thus, jeopardizing the interests of the reserved category
candidates. It is argued that a joint zone of consideration is thus a
gross violation of Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution. The basic
reason for non-filing of backlog vacancies in promotion quota is the
application of a common zone of consideration which is prepared as
field of choice for promotion. It is also averred that present matter
is a case of a special drive to fill the backlog vacancies reserved for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in promotion
quota, therefore, the inclusion of general category candidates while
preparing zone of consideration for promotion seems to be illogical
and against the very purpose of reservation. Therefore, separate
non-joint zone of consideration should be prepared for each
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category without including
general category candidates. Reliance is placed upon Chebrolu
Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
9
wherein the classification limiting the zone of consideration was
found to be illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. Reference was also
made to Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab & Ors.
10
, S.B.
Mathur & Ors. v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors.
11 and
Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. v. V. Chrysolite
12
 to contend
that limiting the zone of consideration and shortlisting the
9 (2021) 11 SCC 401
10 (1999) 7 SCC 209
11 1989 Supp (1) SCC 34
12 (2013) 16 SCC 702
12
candidates has to be reasonable, non-arbitrary, rational and having
a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Dr. Raju has also
placed reliance upon P. Sheshadri v. Union of India & Anr.
13
 to
contend that joint select lists for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
and general category would defeat the purpose of reservation by
pushing the eligible Scheduled Tribe candidate out of the zone of
consideration.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the
entire case of the candidates has been projected in untenable
manner.
20. In P. Sheshadri, the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980,
referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, along with the
other Office Memorandums were the subject matter of
consideration. This Court held as under:
“11. …..Further clause (ii) of para 2.3.2. of OM dated 10-3-
1989 contemplates that selection against vacancies reserved
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be made only
from those Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe officers who are
within the normal zone of consideration prescribed by the
Department of Personnel and AR vide OM No. 22011 dated
24-12-1980. It further contemplates that where (sic adequate)
number of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates are
not available within the normal field of choice, it may be
extended to five times the number of vacancies and
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates (and not any
other) coming within the extended field of choice, should also
be considered against the vacancies reserved for them. If
candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
obtained on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, on
the same basis as others, are less than the number of
vacancies reserved for them, the difference should be made
up by selecting candidates of these communities, who are in
the zone of consideration, irrespective of merit and
13 (1995) 3 SCC 552
13
benchmark but who are considered for promotion and officers
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes selected
for promotion against vacancies reserved for them from
within the extended field of choice would however be placed
en bloc below all the other officers selected from within the
normal field of choice….”
21. We find that the Tribunal and the High Courts have missed the real
controversy. The Government of India had issued an Office
Memorandum dated 26.8.2004 to fill backlog vacancies reserved for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in promotion quota as a
special drive. Such Office Memorandum was not relating to the
Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate or the Indo Tibetan
Border Police but to all the employees of the Central Government.
The candidates in the Office of Customs and Central Excise
Commissionerate submitted representations for consideration for
promotion to the grade of Superintendents. Such representations
were rejected on 4.2.2005. The reason for rejection of the
representation was that the officers had joined Central Excise Delhi
Zone as Inspectors on inter-Commissionerate on transfer basis in
2003. Therefore, they are too juniors to be included even in the
extended zone of consideration.
22. Such communication was challenged by the candidates by an
application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985. The reliance was placed upon the three orders in U.P. Rajya
Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan Sangh; C.D.
Bhatia; and, Basudeo Anil. Considering the said orders, the
Tribunal returned the following findings:
14
“27. However, we find that DoPT is not made as a party
before us. Be that as it may, the fact remains that applicants
who had not been in the zone of consideration, yet in the
wake of unfilled quota for ST de-reservation or thereafter
backlog vacancies is not a correct procedure followed by
respondents.
28. We have also in mind the law laid down by the Apex
Court that total reservation should not exceed 50%.
Accordingly, when the requisite percentage of quota of each
reserved category is satisfied then post-based roster shall
come into effect. The above methodology shall also hold
good while filling up the quota for ST.
29. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, this OA is partly
allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are
directed to take up the matter of extension of same treatment
which has been meted out to SC/ST candidates in ad hoc
promotions vide DoPT OM dated 15.3.2002 to be extended in
regular promotions as well and on forwarding a copy of this
order to the DoPT after consideration of our observations and
decisions of the Apex Court and on a decision taken by the
DoPT respondents shall consider applicants for promotion to
the posts of Superintendents in their reserved quota and till
then, if not already done, shall neither de-reserve the backlog
vacancies meant for ST categories nor fill up these posts in
any manner whatsoever. No costs.”
23. The order impugned in the Original Application was the order dated
4.2.2005 rejecting the representations of some of the candidates for
promotion that the candidates have joined Central Excise (Delhi
Zone) as Inspector on Inter Commissionerate transfer basis in the
year 2003. The Tribunal has not examined the question of seniority
on account of Inter Commissionerate transfer. The order dated
4.2.2005 was set aside and a direction was issued to grant same
treatment to SC/ST candidates in ad hoc promotions as well as in
regular promotions.
24. After the said decision of the Tribunal, DoPT issued revised
15
guidelines for optimizing the size of zone of consideration on
6.1.2006 independent of the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2005,
which has been adversely commented upon by the Tribunal.
25. We find that there are three situation of promotion which are
required to be examined. One is backlog vacancies for which an
Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2004 was issued. Second is ad hoc
promotions for which an Office Memorandum dated 30.4.1983 was
issued followed by 30.9.1983 and 7.9.2000. Clause 7 of the Office
Memorandum of 30.4.1983, as reproduced above, specifically states
that, for regular promotions, procedures and instructions laid down
in the Brochure will continue to apply. For regular promotions, Office
Memorandum has been issued on 24.12.1980, 22.4.1992 and
6.1.2006 wherein zone of consideration was prescribed keeping in
view the number of vacancies which are to be filled up.
26. In the Original Application later filed, the candidates challenged the
Office Memorandum dated 6.1.2006 which is in relation to regular
promotions. There is no parity between backlog vacancies covered
in Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2004 and the regular promotion
covered in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 and/or 6.1.2006.
Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have completely
missed the issue involved in the subsequent applications filed by
the candidates. The grievance of the candidates, first in Original
Application No. 688 of 2005 was only filling up of backlog vacancies
and not regular or ad hoc promotions. The Tribunal and the High
Court had missed the distinction between ad hoc promotions and
16
the regular promotions to be made through Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC).
27. The validity of Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 has been
upheld by this Court in P. Sheshadri. Since the validity of the
Office Memorandum has been upheld, the validity cannot be put to
test again on the basis of Office Memorandum for filling up the
backlog vacancies or ad hoc promotion.
28. The distinction between a special drive for filling up backlog
vacancies and regular promotion to candidates both from the
reserved and the unreserved categories, is too obvious. While filling
up vacancies by way of promotion on regular basis, a DPC is
constituted and the profile of the candidates coming within the zone
of consideration is prepared. But in a special drive for filling up the
backlog vacancies meant for reserved category candidates, such an
exercise become redundant. This is because all candidates who will
be considered for promotion, in a special drive, will invariably belong
to the same reserved category, as otherwise it will cease to be a
special drive.
29. Similarly, the exercise undertaken for filling up vacancies on ad hoc
basis, stands on a different footing from the exercise undertaken for
the grant of regular promotions. The High Court as well as the
Tribunal fell into error on two aspects namely: -
(i) They did not address the issue whether there was a special
recruitment drive for filling up of backlog vacancies and
whether there was a failure to consider the case of the
17
respondents; and
(ii) They applied the yardstick meant for ad hoc promotions to the
case of regular promotions, though the case of the candidates
was for unfilled backlog vacancies. This fundamental error of
focus has resulted in the Tribunal and the High Court
answering a question that did not arise.
1. Therefore, we find the orders of the High Courts are clearly
erroneous and not sustainable in law. Consequently, the orders
passed for regular promotion by extending the zone of consideration
do not arise. The same are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
.............................................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
.............................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 10, 2022.
18

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर