Facts
The Petitioner, an officer of the Indian Ordnance Factory Service in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG), was recommended for promotion to the HAG+ category (Additional Director General/Member of the Board) for the 2017-18 vacancy year
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2.1Although the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) found him fit and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved his name on 14.06.2017, the promotion was withheld because his name appeared on the ‘Agreed List’ due to alleged financial irregularities at the Rifle Factory, Ishapore
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2.1–2.2The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed implementation of the DPC recommendations unless factors in Office Memorandums (OM) dated 14.09.1992 or 21.06.2013 existed
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2.3Consequently, Respondents issued a speaking order on 28.11.2018 rejecting the promotion based on the 2013 OM, citing the Petitioner's presence on the ‘Agreed List’
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 2.4The Petitioner, having retired on 31.01.2019, challenged the conditional implementation and the reliance on the ‘Agreed List’
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2.5; p. 4, para. 6Issues
1. Whether the Respondents were legally justified in denying promotion to the Petitioner based on his inclusion in the ‘Agreed List’ under OM dated 21.06.2013, despite approval from the DPC and ACC.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 122. Whether the parameters for withholding vigilance clearance for "appointments to sensitive posts" under OM dated 14.12.2007 and 21.06.2013 are applicable to cases of promotion.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 14–15; p. 11, para. 20Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the principles established in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, which limits the withholding of promotion to three specific circumstances: suspension, issuance of a charge sheet in disciplinary proceedings, or pending criminal prosecution
Source reference: p. 9, para. 19; p. 12, para. 24This is codified in OM dated 14.09.1992 and 25.10.2004
Source reference: p. 8-9, para. 18-19Conversely, the court noted that OM dated 14.12.2007 (as amended by OM dated 21.06.2013), which includes the "Agreed List" as a ground for withholding vigilance clearance, applies only to empanelment, deputation, and sensitive assignments—not to promotions
Source reference: p. 6, para. 15; p. 11, para. 22Reasoning
The court reasoned that there is a distinct legal difference between promotion, which is a right of an employee, and empanelment or deputation, which are subject to administrative exigencies and suitability
Source reference: p. 10-11, para. 11, 22It found that OM dated 07.07.2008 and 02.11.2012 explicitly clarify that the 2007 OM (and its 2013 amendment) does not cover promotion cases
Source reference: p. 8, para. 18; p. 11, para. 22Since the Petitioner was neither under suspension nor facing a charge sheet or criminal prosecution at the relevant time, he did not meet the restrictive criteria laid down in K.V. Jankiraman for denying promotion
Source reference: p. 12, para. 24The court further critiqued the ‘Agreed List’ as an "opaque" and "vague" category that allows employers to obstruct promotions based on mere suspicion, which is impermissible under law
Source reference: p. 13, para. 26It noted that despite the passage of seven years, no formal adverse action had been taken against the Petitioner regarding the allegations that placed him on said list
Source reference: p. 13, para. 26Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner could not be denied promotion solely for being on the ‘Agreed List’
The Court set aside the denial and directed the Respondents to grant the Petitioner all consequential benefits of notional promotion, effective from the date suggested by the DPC
Source reference: p. 13-14, para. 28-29Original Court PDF
Dilip Vishwanath GondnalevsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in