Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
CHABUNGBAM IBOHAL SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Civil Appeal No. 1149 of 1987
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/02/1995
BENCH:
(KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHAI & B.L HANSARIA, JJ.)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
HANSARIA, J.:
1.The appellant has a grievance that is fundamental right
under Article 16 has been infringed by not promoting him in
the Indian Administrative Service in time as required by the
concerned provisions governing the promotion to that
Service. This grievance has taken an aggravated form
because of promotion of his juniors.
2. The appellant approached Gauhati High Court with the
aforesaid grievance which gave rise to Civil Rule No.256 of
1978. the writ petition stood transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench by operation of
section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The
Tribunal, instead of going through the merits of the
grievance, accepted the preliminary objection raised by the
State Government about the delay in filing the application
and dismissed the same on that ground. Feeling aggrieved
this appeal has been preferred.
3. To do complete justice between the parties, we thought
it would be appropriate to examine the merits of the case
instead of non-suiting the appellant on the ground of delay.
With this point in view, the appeal was once heard on
20.10.94, when need for perusal of the service record of the
appellant from 1970 till 1982 and proceedings of the
Selection Committee from 1974 till 1980 was felt. These
records were produced before us on 8th December, 1994 on
which date hearing was closed.
4. The need for perusal of the aforesaid documents was
felt because the case of the respondent-State (Manipur) is
that name of the appellant had been duly forwarded to the
Selection Committee which had considered his case also in
its meetings which held in 1974, 1976, 1977 and 19801;
165
but the appellant was not found fit and the Selection
Committee did not recommend his name for promotion.
Ultimately, the name of the appellant came to be recommended
in 1981 and he was subsequently promoted.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid records does show that the
appellant’s name had been considered in 1974, 1976, 1977,
1980 by the Selection Committee. It is to be further found
that in 1974 the non-recommendation was not only due to non-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
issuance of integrity certificate by the concerned officer
of the State which, it may be stated, was because of some
disciplinary. proceeding pending against the appellant
relating to his integrity which proceeding came to be
dropped afterwards, but also because the Selection Committee
took note of adverse remarks in the ACRs o the appellant and
observed that his speed in working output was slow and be
was censured in 1969-70.
6. These factors which were taken note by the Selection
Committee arc undoubtedly relevant. We would, however, ob-
serve that the adverse remarks related to the allegation of
embezzlement, which must be taken to have been wiped out
because of the dropping of the disciplinary proceeding
subsequently. Other factors noted by the Selection
Committee receive support from what finds place in the ACRs
of the appellant. Insofar as censure is concerned, we have
seen the order of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur
dated 30th July, 1969, which the appellant was censured.
This had come to happen because of- the issuance of a
certificate by the appellant in favour of one Ibo Pishak
Singh stating that his total income was Rs.600/- per annum.
On the basis of this certificate, Post-Matric Scholarship
meant for low income group students came to be, awarded to
Ibo Pishak Singh. It, however, appears from what has been
in the Chief Secretary’s order that the certificate had been
issued carelessly without proper verification; and so, a
lenient view was taken as there was no mala fide intention
and the appellant came to be censured. The non-
recommendation of the appellant in 1974 was thus for good
and cogent reasons.
7. Insofar as 1976 consideration is concerned, the reason
for supersession have been recorded thus: "His performance
has been found to be only fair, was censured a few year ago.
needs to acquire more experience and show better results
before he can be promoted." These are cogent masons for not
recommending the appellant in that year.
8. The minutes of the meeting concerning the year 1977
shows that the Selection Committee recommended two names,
one of which was of Shri RK Modhusana Singh who belonged to
general category and another Shri LS Thangjon who was a
Scheduled Tribe. RK Modhusana Singh was the junior-most
incumbent in the list of eligible candidates. His
assessment was, however, recorded as "very good" whereas qua
the appellant it had been stated "unfit". As the appellant
was being superseeded by one of his juniors, we do not think
if it was enough on the part of the Selection Committee to
have merely stated "’unfit"’, and then to recommend the name
of one of his juniors. No for unfitness is reflected in the
proceedings, as against what earlier Selection Committees
had done to which reference has already been made.
166
9. Despite the above, we do not propose to interfere with
this supersession of the appellant because we have found
that Madhosana Singh was rated ’very good", whereas a
perusal of the ACRs of the appellant shows that he cannot be
rated as "very good", indeed, it would be difficult to
regard him even as "good". So, no injustice has really been
caused to the appellant in the recommendation of one of his
juniors for promotion. As to Thangjon, it may be stated
that he was the only Scheduled Tribe candidate amongst
eligible persons. This apart, his assessment has been
recorded as "good". This shows that there was no unfairness
or arbitrariness in the proceeding of the Selection Commit-
tee of that year.
10.The last year with which we are concerned is 1980,and in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
that year what happened was the Selection Committee had
recommended four names of State Civil Services Officers and
these were of; (1) Sh. S. Sarat Singh; (2) Shri A Sarat
Chander Singh; (3) RK Modhusana; and (4) Shri RK Birendra
Singh. The assessment of the first three recommendees as
noted in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, is that
all were "very good", and it is because of this that though
they were last three in the list of eligible candidates they
were preferred over their seniors. The fourth, namely RK
Singh is the senior most among the eligible candidates and
it is because of this that of the remaining five his name
was recommended. The appellant was immediately below RK
Birendra Singh in the list o eligible candidates and had
been rated as "good", as was RK Birendra Singh; but as the
Selection Committee could have recommended only four names,
his name could not be recommended.
11.The aforesaid shows that no illegality had been committed
by the Selection Committee or injustice had been caused in
not recommending the name of the petitioner prior to 1981
for his promotion to Indian Administrative Service. We,
therefore,do not read any infraction of Article 16 in the
appellant having been promoted pursuant to the
recommendation made in 1981 only. So, the appeal has to be
dismissed, which we hereby do. No costs.
167