UNION OF INDIA v. •

SMT. SADHANA KHANNA

DECEMBER 14, 2007 B

[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)

Service Law-Promotion-Select List for promotion-Non

c inclusion of senior candidates' name though qualified whereas names ofiunior candidates included-Challenge to-Held: Senior candidate was issued appointment letter after the eligibility date for promotion whereas junior candidates ttere issued prior to eligibility date-Hence, Department was at fault-Senior candidates ' name to be considered for promotion.

D Aggrieved respondent filed application challenging the Select List for promotion to the post of Section Officer for year 1991, since ; her name was not included in the Select List though she was qualified and the name of the officers junior to the respondent was included

E in the select list and were promoted to the post of Section Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the application. High Court upheld the order.

Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

F HELD: The respondent was offered appointment by letter dated 5. 7.1983 which was after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1.7.1983. Hence, it was the Department which was to be blamed for

G sending the letter offering appointment after 1.7.1983. Moreover, in view of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Trainingdated 18.3.1988and19.7.1989 the respondent was also to be considered, othenvise a very incongruous situation would arise ... namely that the junior would be considered for promotion but the

H senior would not. (Para 11] [744-G-H; 745-A-BJ 742

UNIONOFINDIAv. SMT. SADHANAKHANNA

[MARKANDEYKATJU, J.] 743

-1 R. Prabha Devi & Ors. v. Government of India Through Secretary, A Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors.,

(1988] 2 sec 233, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8208 of 2001.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 1311 of2000.

T.S. Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj, Sushma Suri and Manpreet Singh Doabia for the Appellant. c

Rachna Gupta, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh and Amrit Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against D the impugned judgn1ent of the Delhi High Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No.1311 of2000.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central Secretariat Service on 13. 7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade Examination held in October, 1981. The respondent was allocated to the finance cadre comprising the Ministry of Finance.

4. After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of F Assistant, the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of Section Officer on 24.7.1991. The respondent continues to work in this post till date.

5. Select List (Seninrity quota) for promotion to the Section Officers G Grade for the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993. The respondent's name has not been included in this select list although the respondent was qualified to be included in the select list. Officers junior to the respondent who have secured lower rank in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981 have been included in the select list for Section Officers 1991.

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

6. The seniority list of Assistants Grade had been issued on 1st October, 1990. In this list the respondent ranks at S.N.29 whereas other officers of the same grade at S.Nos.30, 32, 34, 25 and so on who are junior to the respondent in this seniority list have superseded the respondent and promqted as Section Officer on the basis of the Selet B List of 1991. Promotion to the post of section officers from the grade of Assistant to the grade of Section Officers (seniority quota) is on nonselection basis, based only on seniority.

7. The grievance of the respondent was that her juniors were included C in the select list but her name was not so included. Hence, she filed an

O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

8. Jn the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein (respondent before the Tribunal) alleged that the respondent was not eligible for inclusion in the Select List of 1991, since on 1. 7 .1991 she D was short of the minimum eligibility service requirement of eight years by twelve days. The respondent joined as Assistant on 13.7.1983 and as such she could not be placed on the select list.

9. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. by its order dated 24.9.1999. In E the said O.A. it was hold that the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1989 soon after the decision of this Court in R. Prabha Devi and Ors. v. Government of JndiaThrough Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Ors., [1988] 2 SCC 233 stating that where F the junior had completed the eligibility requirement of promotion then their seniors will also be considered even if they have not completed the eligibility period.

10. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed and hence this appeal.

11. It may be noted that the respondent was offered appointment vide letter dated 5.7.1983 which is after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. Hence, it is the Department which is to blame for sending the letter offering appointment after 1. 7 .1983. In fact, some of H the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1.7.1983. Hence it was the Department

UNION OF INDIA v. SMT. SAD HANA KHANNA 745

[MARKANDEYKA TJU, J.]

which is to blame for this. Moreover, in view of the Office Memorandum A of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 18.3.1988 and

19. 7.1989 the respondent was also to be considered, otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise namely that the junior will be considered for promotion but the senior will not.

12. In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and it is B dismissed.

N.J.

Appeal dismissed.