Full Judgment Text
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 65
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020)
DIRECTOR GENERAL,
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
J.K. PRASHAR & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of
th
India are directed against the judgment dated 28 May, 2019
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the
High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere
th
with the Order dated 17 December, 2018 passed in CWP No.
Signature Not Verified
20984/2016. By the said judgment, the High Court had
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.29
18:29:37 IST
Reason:
accepted the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and
1
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020
reversed the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the post of
Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in
violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982
(hereinafter being referred to as ‘statutory rules’).
3. The appellant-CSIR has questioned the decision of the High
Court on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not eligible to be
promoted to the post of Under Secretary as he had never
performed the duties of a Section Officer on independent basis
and hence, he was not possessed of the eligibility criteria under
the Statutory rules.
4. The extant rule of statutory rules is extracted below:-
“ Under Secretary/Administrative Officer(Rs. 10,000-325-
15,200)
Recruitment to this Grade shall be made by promotion, on
the basis of merit from amongst Section Officers (General) and Sr.
Personal Asstts.(now re-designated as Private Secretaries) who have
rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in the grade of
Rs. 6500-200-10,500 and on the recommendations of the
Departmental Promotional Committee which shall interview the
eligible candidates.
i. Vacancies in this grade occurring in a year shall
be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from amongst Section
Officers (Gen.) and Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-
designated as Private Secretaries). In the event of
non-availability of suitable officers for filling up
vacancies earmarked for a Cadre, such unfilled
vacancies shall not be filled up from officers of
another Cadre; and
2
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020
ii. 25% of the Private Secretaries who have
completed minimum six years of approved service as
Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-designated as Private
Secretaries) be made to work as Section officer (Gen.)
for a period of one year before they are considered for
promotion to the post of Under
Secretary/Administrative Officer.
Note: Governing Body also approved
appointments/selections made so far as Sr. Personal
Asstts., now re-designated as Private Secretaries to
the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer
(Gr. I) in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500.”
5. The High Court, upon an analysis of the factual and legal
scenario found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on
st
the basis of certificates issued to them on 1 March, 2011
affirming that they had performed the duties of Section Officer in
th
the year preceding the date of the DPC i.e. 5 March, 2011.
6. So far as case of respondent no. 1 is concerned, the High
th
Court took note of the Order dated 15 March, 2004 whereby, the
said respondent was formally appointed as Section Officer, which
fact was not denied by the respondents in their counter to the
writ petition.
7. During the course of oral submissions (supplemented by
written submissions), learned counsel for the appellant has
placed on record the certificates held by respondent nos. 2 and 3
3
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020
whereby, they were given the benefit of one year’s experience as
Section Officers for being promoted to the post of Under
Secretary. A perusal of these certificates reflects that services of
respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on
attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of
them as Section Officer. It may be noted that the pertinent plea
raised by respondent no. 1 regarding he having been appointed as
th
Section Officer vide Order dated 15 March, 2004 was not
disputed by the appellant in its reply before the High Court.
8. Another plea was taken by the appellant before the learned
Tribunal that the promotion to the post of Under Secretary was
to be done as per merit and that respondent no. 1 was not graded
as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very
Good’. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us
because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 was interfered
with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post.
Thus, there was no impediment for the promotion by selection of
respondent No.1 to the post of Under Secretary under the
statutory rules. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion
that the action of the appellant in denying promotion to
4
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020
respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly
reversed by the High Court.
9. During the pendency of the litigation, respondent no. 1 has
superannuated on 31st July, 2019.
10. In view of the above, we are of the firm view that the
impugned judgment rendered by the High Court does not require
any interference. However, we make it clear that the present
adjudication shall be confined to the case of respondent no. 1
and will not be considered as a precedent.
11. The appeals are dismissed in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………...………………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
……………………………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
January 29, 2024.
5