Case Note & Summary
By way of an order dated 16 December 1996, the Supreme Court of India disposed of appeals by special leave filed by the Union of India against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, passed on 14 August 1996 in OA Nos.219/95 and 237/96. The dispute concerned promotion to the post of Senior General Manager in the Indian Ordnance Factories under the Indian Ordnance Factories Services Rules. The grade carried a pay scale of Rs.3700-8000. For the year 1994-95, a panel of successful candidates was required to be prepared. According to the Union of India, there were no clear vacancies as on April 1994, though four members in the grade were due to retire during that year. A proposal for filling the ensuing vacancies was sent from the Ordnance Factory Board to the Ministry on 22 December 1993, and the Ministry communicated its approval to the Union Public Service Commission on 8 February 1994. ACRs of eligible candidates were approved on 16 August 1994, and four incumbents joined as members of the Board on 22 August 1994, 3 September 1994, 6 October 1994 and 1 March 1995 respectively. Consequently, the DPC met on 15 March 1995 to select officers for the four vacancies. The Union of India contended that the crucial date for the DPC meeting should be April or May 1995, and that only ACRs approved as on 31 March 1994 should be considered. The Tribunal had directed that ACRs for 1994 be ignored and that candidates eligible up to March 1993 be considered, with the DPC to be constituted as on 1 April 1994. The Additional Solicitor General argued that ACRs are prepared on financial year basis and were approved only on 31 March 1995, so the DPC could not have had approved ACRs before that date; hence the Tribunal's direction was incorrect. The Supreme Court, after examining the Ministry of Personnel and Training guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees, found no force in the contention. It observed that the guidelines require an annual action plan, advance preparation of ACRs, regular DPC meetings, and year-wise panels. The guidelines in Part I, clause 49, emphasise objective and impartial suitability assessment, free from extraneous considerations like caste, creed, colour, sect, religion or region. Part II provides that DPCs should be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels, with the panel life being one year; action must be initiated well in advance to collect ACRs, integrity certificates and seniority lists; DPCs should meet every year on 1st April or May, and annual meetings can be dispensed with only upon a certificate that there are no vacancies. Part III requires accurate estimation of clear vacancies arising due to death, retirement, resignation, long-term promotion/deputation or creation of additional posts; short-term vacancies are excluded. The crucial date for eligibility is 1st July where ACRs are calendar year-wise and 1st October where financial year-wise. Part 6.4.1 provides for year-wise panels when DPC is delayed. The court referred to State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762, on the two-fold object of confidential reports, and to S.K. Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575, holding that preparation of select list every year is mandatory and dereliction of statutory duty must be accounted for; the court takes serious note of wanton infraction. The court thus upheld the mandatory nature of annual DPC meetings and advance preparation of select lists, rejecting the Union of India's argument that late approval of ACRs justified delay. The final operative direction as reproduced in the available text is not explicitly set out, but the reasoning firmly supports the Tribunal's approach and the mandatory character of the guidelines.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Promotion Committee - Annual Meetings and Advance Panel - Ministry of Personnel and Training Guidelines, Parts I, II and III - The DPC is required to meet regularly every year on or before 1st April or 1st May to draw panels for vacancies occurring during the year and the panel's life is one year; action must be initiated in advance to collect ACRs, integrity certificates and seniority lists. Held that the guidelines mandate annual DPC meetings and advance preparation of select lists to avoid delay and dissatisfaction among eligible officers. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Objective and Impartial Assessment - Ministry of Personnel and Training Guidelines, Part I, clause 49; State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762 - Confidential reports must be written by a competent superior officer and reviewed by a higher officer, objectively and impartially, without extraneous considerations such as caste, creed, colour, sect, religion or region, to augment efficiency and improve competence. Held that the object of confidential reports is to give opportunity to remove deficiencies, inculcate discipline and improve quality of public service. (Paras 1-6) C) Service Law - Eligibility Date for Promotion - ACR Year-wise Determination - Ministry of Personnel and Training Guidelines, Part III (amended w.e.f. 19-07-1989) - Where ACRs are written calendar year-wise, the crucial date for determining eligibility is 1st July; where written financial year-wise, 1st October. Held that the appellants' contention that the DPC could not have been held before March 1995 because ACRs were approved only then was rejected as contrary to the advance planning required by the guidelines. (Paras 1-6) D) Service Law - Preparation of Year-wise Panels - Delayed DPC - Ministry of Personnel and Training Guidelines, Part 6.4.1; S.K. Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575 - Where DPC could not be held in year(s) due to reasons beyond control, the first DPC thereafter must determine actual regular vacancies year-wise, consider eligible officers for each year starting earliest, and prepare select list placing earlier year above the next; preparation of select list every year is mandatory. Held that dereliction of statutory duty must be accounted for and the court takes serious note of wanton infraction. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the Government to ignore ACRs for the year 1994 and consider candidates eligible only up to March 1993, and whether the DPC was required to be constituted as on April 1, 1994 for filling the 1994-95 vacancies despite the ACRs being approved only on March 31, 1995.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found no force in the appellants' contention and held that the Ministry of Personnel and Training guidelines require annual DPC meetings, advance preparation of select lists, and objective ACR assessment. It reiterated that preparation of select list every year is mandatory, as held in S.K. Rizvi v. Union of India. The final operative direction is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the reasoning rejects the Union of India's argument.
Law Points
- Departmental Promotion Committee must meet annually to prepare select list in advance for anticipated vacancies
- ACRs must be finalised and approved well before DPC
- eligibility date determined by ACR year-wise
- delayed DPC must prepare year-wise panels
- selection must be objective
- impartial
- free from extraneous considerations
- preparation of select list every year is mandatory
- panel life is one year
- DPC meeting dispensed only by certificate of no vacancies.
