SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2018 SCC OnLine Bom 374 : (2018) 3 AIR Bom R 458 : 2018 Lab
IC 2305

In the High Court of Bombay

(BEFORE V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J. AND M.S. SONAK, J.)

Union of India and Another … Petitioners;

Versus
K.K. Verma … Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2002
Decided on March 19, 2018, [Date of Reserving the Judgment : 08
March 2018]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Petitioner.
Mr. G.K. Masand i/b. Mr. Ajeet Manwani for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned judgment and
order dated 23rd January 2001 made by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 601 of 2001. By the
impugned judgment and order, the CAT, has declared that the criteria
adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for
assessment of the candidates for promotion to the post of Principal
Head of Department (PHOD), in the railways as arbitrary. The CAT has
further held that the respondent (original applicant before the CAT) was
entitled for promotion to the post of PHOD and has directed for conduct
of review DPC in order to promote the respondent to the post of PHOD
with effect from the date his juniors were promoted with all
consequential benefits. The promotion is directed to be notional from
th
8 December 1999 and the arrears are directed to be paid from the
date of the review DPC.
th
3. This Court, by an order dated 11 October 2002 issued Rule and
granted ad interim relief. By further order dated 13th January 2003, the
th
ad interim stay granted on 11 October 2002 was confirmed.
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent has already retired from
service. However, Mr. Masand, the learned counsel for the respondent is
quite right in his submission that such retirement by itself does not
render the present petition infructuous since, on the basis of the
impugned judgment and order, the respondent will be entitled to
consequential benefits like arrears and revision of pension in case the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

present petition is dismissed and the stay to the operation of the

impugned judgment and order, vacated. Accepting this submission of
Mr. Masand, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
proceed to dispose of this petition finally.
5. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the DPC in the present case has in fact adhered to the guidelines
prescribed for its functioning. He submits that the marking system
adopted by the DPC could not have been regarded as the deviation or in
any case substantial deviation from such guidelines. Mr. Suresh Kumar
submits that the DPC is always at liberty to adopt its own procedure for
assessment of suitability of candidates and as long as the method so
adopted is not arbitrary or unreasonable, judicial review in such matters
must be extremely limited. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the view
taken by the CAT in the impugned judgment and order ignores these
settled principles, regards judicial review.
6. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that in the present case, the OA
instituted by the respondent ought to have been dismissed on the
ground of non joinder of necessary party i.e. the officer recommended
for promotion and actually promoted to the post of PHOD. Such officer,
was a necessary party and in his absence, the CAT should have simply
dismissed the OA instituted by the respondent.
7. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that admittedly, the officer who was
recommended for promotion and actually promoted to the post of PHOD
was assessed as ‘outstanding’ on two occasions and ‘very good’ on
three occasions for the five years preceding the date of his
consideration for promotion. In contrast, the respondent was assessed
as ‘very good’ on five occasions for the past five years. In such
circumstances, if the DPC upon evaluation of the candidature of the two
officers made recommendation to promote the officer who had two
‘outstandings’ and three ‘very goods’, then, it cannot be said that there
was any arbitrariness or unreasonableness involved in the matter so as
to exercise the powers of judicial review.
8. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that merely because the DPC chose to
assign 5 marks to every grading of ‘outstanding’ and 4 marks to every
grading of ‘very good’, that by itself, does not amount to deviation from
the prescribed criteria. In any case, that by itself, does not amount to
any arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of power so as to warrant judicial
review.
9. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the CAT in the impugned
judgment and order has declared that the respondent was entitled to
promotion and thereafter, directed the constitution of a review DPC in
order to formally recommend the promotion of the respondent and
thereafter grant him all consequential benefits including deemed pay
and arrears. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that in such matters the courts
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and tribunals can at the highest direct reconsideration but only rarely
can courts and tribunals issue a mandamus to promote. For these
reasons also, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the impugned judgment
and order warrants interference.
10. Mr. Masand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
as per the DPC guidelines, the bench mark prescribed was ‘very good’.
Since, for the period preceding five years, the respondent was assessed
as ‘very good’ for each of the years, it is apparent that the respondent
had met with the bench mark. In such circumstances, the DPC, had no
right or authority to evolve some other procedure, so as to deny
promotion to the respondent. The criteria of marks evolved by the DPC
was ex facie illegal and arbitrary and was therefore correctly set aside
by the CAT. Mr. Masand submits that the CAT undoubtedly has
jurisdiction to set aside the arbitrary and unreasonable criteria or
method adopted by the DPC and therefore, the impugned judgment
and order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error so
as to warrant interference in these proceedings.
11. Mr. Masand submits that the CAT has taken into consideration
the plea of non joinder of necessary parties. On this ground, the CAT
has made it clear that the selection of the officers to the post of PHOD
is not being disturbed. In any case, now that such officer as well as the
respondent have both retired, there is only question of payment of
monetary benefits. In such circumstances, the issue of non joinder of
necessary parties has become merely academic and there is no case to
deny the respondent any relief on the said ground or even otherwise.
12. Mr. Masand submits that the DPC not only changed the criteria
of prescribed guidelines, but further such revised criteria was never
made known to any of the parties. He submits that in the absence of
such criteria being made known to the parties, the DPC was not at all
entitled to either change such criteria or apply such criteria. The CAT
has quite correctly accepted this contention of the respondent and
there is no illegality in the view taken by the CAT.
13. Mr. Masand submits that since the respondent was denied
promotion on the basis of illegal and arbitrary criteria evolved by the
DPC and since, such criteria has been set aside, the CAT, was entirely
justified in holding that the respondent, who had admittedly secured
the assessment of ‘very good’ for the preceding five years, was entitled
to be promoted to the post of PHOD. Mr. Masand submits that there is
no bar to the CAT from holding that a party is entitled to promotion and
thereafter directing the conduct of a review DPC so that such promotion
can actually be granted to the party concerned.
th
14. Mr. Masand submits that ad interim relief dated 11 October
2002 was issued by this Court without notice to the respondent.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the circumstances that the respondent has already retired

without being promoted to the post of PHOD can never be held against
the respondent. Mr. Masand submits that taking into consideration that
promotion has been denied to the respondent for such length of time,
this Court, should dismiss this petition and thereafter direct the
petitioners to pay to the respondent consequential benefits including
the arrears along with interest at the current rates. For all these
reasons, Mr. Masand submits that this petition may be dismissed and
Rule made be discharged.
15. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
16. In this case, we are concerned with selection to the post of
PHOD, which is admittedly a post of the level of Additional Secretary to
the Government of India. In terms of the Rules, the selection to such a
post is to be made on the basis of recommendations of a High Level
Selection Committee comprising Chairman Railway Board, Secretary of
Department of Personnel & Training and one Member of the Railway
Board. The recommendations of such High Level Selection Committee
are then to be approved by the Minister of Railways. Upon such
approval, the recommendations are then forwarded to the Department
of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) for securing the approval of the
Government at the highest level i.e. Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet (ACC) before, appointment is actually made in pursuance of
such recommendations from the High Level Selection Committee.
th
17. The Railway Board vide letter dated 26 September 1989 has
issued certain guidelines to be followed for promotion to an
administrative grades in the railway services. There is also an Office
Memorandum (OM) dated 10th March 1989 issued by the DOP&T in the
matter of procedure to be adopted by the Departmental Promotion
Committees. Even assuming that these guidelines apply to promotions
to the post of PHOD which are to be made on the basis of
recommendations of High Level Selection Committee referred to earlier,
it must be noted that the letter and the OM merely prescribes the
guidelines to be followed by the DPC in such matters. Besides, even the
guidelines merely provide that the confidential rolls/reports (CRs) of
the candidates are only the basic inputs on the basis of which
assessment is to be made by the Selection Committee. Further, the
guidelines provide that the Selection Committee would not be guided
merely by the overall assessment, if any, that may be recorded in the
CRs, but will make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the
CRs. The guidelines provided that for the purposes of promotion from
JA Grade to SA Grade to Additional Secretary's Grade, the bench mark
shall be ‘very good’. For this purpose, the Selection Committee will
grade the officers who are considered to be suitable for promotion as
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’. Officers graded ‘outstanding’ will rank

senior to all those are graded ‘very good’ and placed in the select panel
accordingly. Officers with the same grading will maintain their existing
inter se seniority.
th
18. The OM dated 10 March 1989 issued by DOP&T also states that
each departmental committee should decide its own method and
procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates.
Further, clause 2.1.2 of the OM provides that at present DPC's enjoy full
discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective
assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by
them. In order to ensure greater selectivity in matters of promotions,
and for having uniform procedure for assessment by DPCs fresh
guidelines have been prescribed. The fresh guidelines in terms provide
that while merit has to be recognized and rewarded, advancement in an
officer's career should not be regarded as a matter of course but should
be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented
performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports and based
on strict and rigorous selection process. Clause 2.2.1 again reiterates
that confidential rolls are only the basic inputs on the basis of which
assessment has to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should
however be fair, just and non discriminatory. The guidelines also state
that the DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if
any, that may be recorded in the CRs, but should make its own
assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs, because it has been
noticed that sometime an overall grading in the CR may be inconsistent
with the grading under various parameters or attributes.
th
19. Clause 2.3.1.(ii) of the aforesaid OM dated 10 March 1989 in
terms provides that in respect of all posts which are in the level of Rs.
3700-5000 and above, the bench mark grade should be ‘very good’.
However, officers who are graded as ‘outstanding’ would rank en bloc
senior to those who are graded as ‘very good’ and placed in the select
panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies, officers with same
grading maintaining their inter se seniority in the feeder post.
th
20. Therefore upon careful consideration of the letter dated 26
September 1989 or the OM dated 10th March 1989, it is quite clear that
the DPCs are entitled to decide their own methods and procedures for
objective assessment of suitability of candidates. However, the
methods and procedures which the DPCs adopt must not be
unreasonable or arbitrary. Further, in order that there is substantial
uniformity or that there is no unfettered discretion vested in such
matters, certain guidelines have been prescribed. The guidelines also
make it very clear that the CRs are only the basic inputs on the basis of
which the assessment is to be made by the DPC. The guidelines
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

emphasize that the DPC should not be guided merely by the overall
grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its
own assessment on the basis of entries in the CRs. Finally, the
guidelines, particularly, in relation to higher posts, prescribe that
officers who are graded as ‘outstanding’ should rank en bloc senior to
those who are graded as ‘very good’ and placed in the select panel
accordingly upto the number of vacancies, officers with the same
grading maintaining their inter se seniority in the feeder post.
21. This means that merely because an officer may have been
graded as ‘very good’, such officer, cannot be said to be entitled for
promotion on the basis of his seniority in the feeder grade when there
are other officers who may have been graded as ‘outstanding’ in the
zone of consideration. Taking into consideration the level of the post of
PHOD there is no serious dispute that this principle is to apply in the
matter of assessment on merit by the DPC or the DSC, which, as noted
earlier, comprises Chairman Railway Board, Secretary DOP&T and one
Member of the Railway Board.
22. In the present case, the selection committee, with a view to
assess suitability of the candidates with greater objectivity merely
provided that it would award 5 marks towards ‘outstanding’ grading, 4
marks toward ‘very good’ grading and 3 marks towards ‘good’ grading.
This was done under the approval of Department of Personnel and
Training (DOP&T). This can hardly be styled as some sort of a deviation
or substantial deviation from the guidelines prescribed. As noted
earlier, the DPCs or DSCs are at liberty to evolve their own methods
and procedures for assessing the suitability as long as the methods and
procedures so evolved by them are not arbitrary or unreasonable.
23. In this case, the DPC or the DSC, did not even deviate from
bench mark of ‘very good’. Whilst maintaining the same, prescribed for
a further objective criteria of giving marks in the various grades which
would ultimately assist the DPC or the DSC in an objective manner to
assess the suitability of the candidates before it. In the present case,
there is no dispute that the respondent had grading of ‘very good’ in
each of the 5 years preceding the year of assessment and was therefore
awarded 20 marks. In contrast, the officer who was recommended for
promotion/appointment, by the High Level DPC or the DSC had 2
‘outstanding’ gradings and 3 gradings of ‘very good’. Such officer, was
consequently awarded 22 marks. This method or procedure was applied
uniformly in respect of all the candidates. We find nothing arbitrary or
unreasonable in the adoption of such method or procedure. In fact,
such method or procedure ensured greater objectivity in the
assessment of the merit of the candidates before the DPC or the DSC.
24. As noted earlier, even the guidelines provided that officers who
have been graded as ‘outstanding’ must rank en block senior to those
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

who are graded as ‘very good’. The guidelines also provide that the CRs
are only the basic inputs and it is within the province of the DPC or the
DSC to grade the candidates suitably and not good just by the overall
grading, if any, as reflected in the CRs. Taking all these aspects into
consideration, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the CAT
that the method of assigning marks to the gradings constitutes any
deviation or any serious deviation from the guidelines prescribed. We
are also unable to agree with the CAT that such method or procedure
adopted by the DPC or the DSC was arbitrary or unreasonable so as to
warrant interference in the exercise of judicial review.
25. The CAT has ruled that the deviated procedure or criteria should
have been made known to the candidates. Again, we are unable to
agree with the CAT on this score as well. In the first place, as noted
earlier, the method or procedure can hardly be styled as any deviation.
In any case, when the guidelines themselves provide that the DPC or
the DSC can evolve its own procedure or methods, then, in a matter of
this nature, there is no question of insisting upon prior disclosure. It is
too far fetched to indicate if the candidates were to know that their
gradings would be marked, they might have discharged their duties
more efficiently. In any case, the DPC or the DSC has in fact taken into
consideration the gradings of the candidates/officers but as a matter of
convenience, assigned to such gradings marks so that there is greater
objectivity and transparency in the entire process. In such
circumstances, there was no warrant for the CAT to interfere with the
procedure and the method adopted by the DPC or the DSC, which as
noted earlier, comprised Chairman Railway Board, Secretary DOP&T and
the Member of the Railway Board.
26. In the present case, taking into consideration the nature of the
post of PHOD and the stringent procedures provided for determining
merit and making appointments, it is apparent that the candidates who
had secured the grading of ‘outstanding’ were ranked en bloc senior to
the candidates who, may have secured the grading of ‘very good’. This
is in terms of the letter and the OM upon which the respondent had
himself placed reliance. Therefore, it is not as if this was a case where
the moment a candidate secures the bench mark ‘very good’ he or she
was entitled to be promoted or selected for appointment on the basis of
seniority in the feeder cadre. Since, the respondent, had been graded
as ‘very good’ for preceding 5 years, at the highest, the respondent
could have claimed a grading of ‘very good’ before the DPC. Candidate
who was selected however, had at least 2 ‘outstanding’ and 3 ‘very
good’ gradings in the preceding 5 years. In such a situation, there was
nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the DPC grading such
officer/candidate as ‘outstanding’, though, by awarding him 22 marks
as against the 20 marks secured by the respondent. Instead of grading
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the selected candidate/officer as ‘outstanding’, all that the DPC or the

DSC has done is to assess his grading and award him 22 marks as
against 20 marks awarded to the respondent. Again, there is nothing
arbitrary or unreasonable in the method or procedure evolved by the
DPC or the DCS so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers of
judicial review.
1
27. In Anil Katiyar v. Union of India , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that having regard to the confidential procedure which is followed
by the Union Public Service Commission, it is not possible to hold that
the decision of the DPC in grading the appellant as ‘very good’ instead
of ‘outstanding’ was arbitrary. No ground is therefore made out for
interference with the selection of the respondent no. 4 by the DPC on
the basis of which he had been appointed as Deputy Government
Advocate. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the
approach of the CAT in scrutinizing and ultimately interfering with the
method and procedure adopted by the DPC in the matter of selection to
the post of Deputy Government Advocate.
2
28. In Union of India v. A.K. Narula , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was concerned with the OM dated 10th March 1989 issued by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension which laid down
the procedure of selection where recruitment rules require promotions
to be made by selection. This OM is quoted in paragraph 4 of the
judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and from the perusal
th
of the same, it is virtually the same as OM dated 10 March 1989 with
which we are concerned in the present matter. Upon due consideration
of such guidelines, the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 has held that
the guidelines give certain amount of play in the joints to DPC by
providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in
CRs but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in
the CRs. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the
performance of each candidate separately but by adopting the same
standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of
assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or
arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. Where DPC has
proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner by applying the
same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no
arbitrariness of the process of assessment by the DPC, the court will not
interfere, vide SBI v. Mohd. Mynuddin3.
29. In Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that unless there is a strong case for applying
the Wednesbury doctrine (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
5
Wednesbury Corporation ) or there are mala fides, courts or tribunals
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cannot interfere with the assessment made by the DPC in regards to

merit or fitness of promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is
either proved to be mala fide or is found based on inadmissible or
irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material and if an attitude of
ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspects of one's career is
strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no
reasonable person can reach such conclusions, or if there is illegality
attached to the decision, then the powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed. Undue interference by
the courts or tribunals will result in paralyzing recommendations of
Departmental Committees and promotions.
30. In State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that whenever promotion to a higher post is to
be made on the basis of merit, no officer can claim such promotion as a
matter of right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on
which his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his
confidential reports it is recorded that his services are satisfactory. An
officer may be capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him
satisfactorily but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such
promotion can be effected it is the duty of the management to consider
the case of the officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials.
The methods of evaluation of the abilities or the competence of the
persons to be selected for such posts should in the public interest
ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a committee consisting
of persons who have the knowledge of the requirements of a given
post, to be nominated by the employer. The court is not by its very
nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes
necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the
modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the
responsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being promoted to
a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. It is only when the
process of selection is vitiated on the ground of bias, mala fides or any
other similar vitiating circumstances and other considerations will arise.
In the present case, the CAT, has clearly ignored these well settled
principles.
31. We are also of the opinion that in the present case, the CAT,
ought not to have entertained the OA 601 of 2001 without insisting
upon impleadment of the selected and the appointed officer to the post
of PHOD. Such an objection had in fact been raised before the CAT.
However, CAT in the ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment and
order has merely observed that since the respondent has not made the
selected persons parties to the OA, the CAT will not disturb their
selection. However, immediately thereafter, the CAT, has proceeded to
declare that the respondent was entitled for promotion to PHOD and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has directed the respondents before the CAT to hold a review DPC for
promoting the respondent to the post of PHOD with effect from the date
his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. At the stage
when such directions were issued, in all probabilities, the selected
persons were actually holding the post of PHOD. Since, the CAT had
already ruled that the respondent was entitled for promotion to the post
of PHOD, nothing further, was required to be done by the review DPC
other than to recommend the respondent for promotion. Similarly
nothing further was required to be done by the respondents other than
to promote/appoint the respondent to the post of PHOD by giving him a
deemed date. This means that either the respondents would have to
create some supernumerary post if this was possible or revert the
selected and appointed person holding the post of PHOD. In the
minimum, the selected persons, would have to be ranked as junior to
the respondent. All such directions could never been issued without
insisting upon the impleadment of the selected person. This is an
additional ground for interference with the impugned judgment and
order made by the CAT.
32. In Suresh v. Yeotmal Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.6, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petition challenging promotions
cannot be adjudicated unless candidates higher-up in seniority are
impleaded as parties.
7
33. In Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission and
8
Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that a High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally
affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by
some of the being before it as respondents in a representative capacity
if their number is too large, and, therefore, Allahabad High Court ought
not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition
without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made
respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made
respondents in a representative capacity.
34. Mr. Masand has however contended that as of now both the
respondent as well as the selected person have already retired. Mr.
Masand submits that therefore, as of today, there is no question of any
reversion or creation of supernumerary post. Mr. Masand submits that
at present the only question is of award of consequential monetary
benefits to the respondent and therefore, the issue of any joinder of the
selected person is merely academic. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are unable to agree. If the
submission of Mr. Masand is to be accepted then it would amount to
burdening the petitioners with the payment of salary, as well as
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pensionary benefits twice over. Such salary and pensionary benefits

have already been drawn by the selected person whose selection the
CAT has not interfered with. At the same time, similar salary and
pensionary benefits will have to be awarded to the respondent once
again. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the CAT ought not to
have entertained the OA without insisting upon the impleadment of the
selected person, who was a necessary party to such proceedings.
35. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
we are satisfied that the CAT should not have entertained the OA
without insisting upon the impleadment of the selected person who was
admittedly appointed to the post of PHOD.
36. Again in the present case, we find that the CAT has straightway
directed the petitioners to promote the respondent to the post of PHOD.
Even where the court or a tribunal comes to the conclusion that
promotion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason, ordinarily,
the court or the tribunal can issue a direction to consider the case of
the concerned officer for promotion but it cannot issue a direction to
promote the officer concerned to the higher post without giving an
opportunity to the employer to consider the question of promotion.
Where the State Government or a statutory authority is under an
obligation to promote an employee to a higher post which has to be
filled up by selection, the State Government or the statutory authority
alone should be directed to consider the question whether the
employee is entitled to be so promoted and the court should not
ordinarily issue a writ to the Government or the statutory authority to
promote such officer straightway. (See : State Bank of India v. Mohd.
9 10
Mynuddin and State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood ).
37. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition and set aside
the impugned judgment and order made by the CAT. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, there shall not be no
order as to costs.
———
1
(1997) 1 SCC 280

2
(2007) 11 SCC 10

3
(1987) 4 SCC 486

4
(2000) 8 SCC 395

5
[1947] 2 All ER 680

6
(2008) 12 SCC 558 : AIR 2008 SC 2432
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Printed For: Dyuthi N Aayasya, BMS College of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7
(2006) 12 SCC 724

8
(1984) 4 SCC 251

9
(1987) 4 SCC 486

10
AIR 1968 SC 1113

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.