Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8110 OF 2011
Manoj Kumar Jindal …Appellant
Versus
Rajni Mahajan & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana upholding the order passed by
the Single Bench is under challenge before this Court. It is a
case in which the appellant as well as the respondent No.1
are serving in Department of Technical Education and
Industrial Training, Punjab. The root cause of the litigation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.03.14
17:30:23 IST
Reason:
was an order dated 08.11.2007 vide which the respondent
No.1 was reverted from the post of senior lecturer to that of
2
lecturer. The Single Bench of the High Court set aside that
order. The same was upheld in intracourt appeal before the
Division Bench.
2. The respondent No.1 was promoted as senior lecturer
vide Memo dated 16.05.2007. A notice dated 09.09.2007
was served upon the respondent No.1 to showcause as to
why she should not be revered back to the post of lecturer.
An interim reply was furnished by her on 17.09.2007,
seeking liberty to furnish detailed reply after getting copies
of the relevant documents.
3. Without affording her opportunity to file a detailed
reply, vide impugned order, she was ordered to be reverted
to the post of lecturer. The respondent No.1 as well as the
appellant were working as lecturers. The respondent No.1
was senior to the appellant. The post of senior lecturer
became available on 31.05.2006. A meeting of Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 15.03.2007
wherein the respondent No.1 was recommended to be given
promotion. She joined as senior lecturer on 17.03.2007. A
notice was served upon her to showcause as to why she
3
should not be revered back to the post of lecturer order
vide
dated 08.11.2007. Her order of promotion was withdrawn.
It is the aforesaid said order, which was impugned before
the High Court. The reason for reversion was that she did
not have requisite benchmark at the time when the vacancy
became available. However, there is no dispute that when
the candidates were considered for promotion and the DPC
held on 15.03.2007, the respondent No.1 was having the
requisite benchmark and was recommended to be promoted.
The learned Single Bench opined that the ACRs for five years
preceding the date of consideration for promotion were to be
taken into account and not from the date of accrual of the
vacancy.
4. Though, the contention sought to be raised by learned
counsel for the appellant was that it is a case of malafide as
the DPC was postponed on the intervention of the then
Deputy Chief Minister. No doubt such a stand is available
in the written statement filed by the official respondents as
well as the present appellant. However, the fact remains
that the appellant as such had not alleged any malafide . All
what was placed before the Court by the official respondents
4
was the material in terms of the official record. With
reference to the aforesaid fact, what is available on record is
that on a representation made by the respondent No.1 to the
then Deputy Chief Minister, he directed that the DPC be
held after receipt of the ACR for the immediately preceding
year. When the vacancy arose on 31.05.2006, the
respondent No.1 requested that the ACR for the year 2005
06 should also be part of the record before the DPC when
the matter regarding promotion is considered.
5. We are not finally opining on the issue as to whether
the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only
up to the year the vacancy arose should have been
considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC.
But the fact remains that the respondent no.1 was promoted
way back in the year 2007. More than 15 years have
elapsed. She was otherwise also senior to the appellant in
the cadre of lecturers and there may have been further
promotions of both the parties as well as in the department
where they are working. Any order passed at this stage may
affect number of persons and further may result in
unsettling many positions which have already settled with
5
the lapse of time. Hence, we do not find that a case is made
for interference by this Court.
6. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
……………………………J.
[Abhay S. Oka]
..…………….……………J.
[Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi
14.03.2023