[AI] Supreme Court of India - CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO 7631/2002 Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12-5-2008.
NOTE:THIS LAND MARK JUDGEMENT PROVIDES GREAT RELEIF TO ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES, WHO HAVE MISSED THE CHANCE FOR GETTING PROMOTION AND OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO NOT HAVING TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT STATUS OF THEIR ACR BY CONCERNED AUTHORITY, AS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAID IN PARAGRAPH 39 OF THIS FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT: “-- 39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.--“ Supreme Court of India - CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO 7631/2002 Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12-5-2008 Supreme Court of India Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12/5/2008 JUDGMENT Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 in Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The appellant was in the service of the Border Roads Engineering Service which is governed by the Border Roads Engineering Service Group 'A' Rules, as amended. As per these rules, since the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.2.1988, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on completion of 5 years on the grade of Executive Engineer, which he completed on 21.2.1993. Accordingly the name of the appellant was included in the list of candidates eligible for promotion.4. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held its meeting on 16.12.1994. In that meeting the appellant was not held to be eligible for promotion, but his juniors were selected and promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer. Hence the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed and his appeal before the Division Bench also failed. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special leave before this Court. 5. The stand of the respondent was that according to para 6.3(ii) of the guidelines for promotion of departmental candidates which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pension, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.4.1989, for promotion to all posts which are in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- and above, the bench mark grade should be 'very good' for the last five years before the D.P.C. In other words, only those candidates who had 'very good' entries in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the last five years would be considered for promotion. The post of Superintending Engineer carries the pay scale of Rs. 3700- 5000/- and since the appellant did not have 'very good' entry but only 'good' entry for the year 1993-94, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer.6. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not communicated the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94. He submitted that had he been communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making a representation for upgrading that entry from 'good' to 'very good', and if that representation was allowed he would have also become eligible for promotion. Hence he submits that the rules of natural justice have been violated.7. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that a 'good' entry is not an adverse entry and it is only an adverse entry which has to be communicated to an employee. Hence he submitted that there was no illegality in not communicating the 'good' entry to the appellant.8. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1988 (Supp) SCC 674 in which it was held that an un-communicated adverse report should not form the foundation to deny the benefits to a government servant when similar benefits are extended to his juniors. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chuni
Re: [AI] Supreme Court of India - CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO 7631/2002 Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12-5-2008.
Thank you Mr. Gupta for sharing such an important judgement! regards SC Vashishth Advocate-Delhi High Court 2009/2/27 Rakesh Kumar Gupta > NOTE:THIS LAND MARK JUDGEMENT PROVIDES GREAT RELEIF TO ALL THOSE > EMPLOYEES, WHO HAVE MISSED THE CHANCE FOR GETTING PROMOTION AND OTHER > BENEFITS DUE TO NOT HAVING TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT STATUS OF THEIR ACR BY > CONCERNED AUTHORITY, AS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAID IN PARAGRAPH > 39 OF THIS FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT: > > “-- 39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of > natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public > administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, > good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, > whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the > military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that > he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is > the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring > communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting > it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as > envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such > communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government > orders.--“ > > > > Supreme Court of India - CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO 7631/2002 Dev Dutt vs Union > Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12-5-2008 > > > > > > > > > > Supreme Court of India > >Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12/5/2008 JUDGMENT > Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed > against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 > in Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division > Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant > filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001. > 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The > appellant was in the service of the Border Roads Engineering Service which > is governed by the Border Roads Engineering Service Group 'A' Rules, as > amended. As per these rules, since the appellant was promoted as Executive > Engineer on 22.2.1988, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to > the post of Superintending Engineer on completion of 5 years on the grade > of Executive Engineer, which he completed on 21.2.1993. Accordingly the > name of the appellant was included in the list of candidates eligible for > promotion.4. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held its meeting > on 16.12.1994. In that meeting the appellant was not held to be eligible > for promotion, but his juniors were selected and promoted to the rank of > Superintending Engineer. Hence the appellant filed a Writ Petition before > the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed and his appeal before the > Division Bench also failed. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by > special leave before this Court.5. The stand of the respondent was that > according to para 6.3(ii) of the guidelines for promotion of departmental > candidates which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Public > Grievances and Pension, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.4.1989, for > promotion to all posts which are in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- and > above, the bench mark grade should be 'very good' for the last five years > before the D.P.C. In other words, only those candidates who had 'very > good' entries in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the last > five years would be considered for promotion. The post of Superintending > Engineer carries the pay scale of Rs. 3700- 5000/- and since the appellant > did not have 'very good' entry but only 'good' entry for the year 1993-94, > he was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintending > Engineer.6. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not > communicated the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94. He submitted that had > he been communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making > a representation for upgrading that entry from 'good' to 'very good', and > if that representation was allowed he would have also become eligible > for promotion. Hence he submits that the rules of natural justice have > been violated.7. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted > that a 'good' entry is not an adverse entry and it is only an adverse > entry which has to be communicated to an employee. Hence he submitted that > there was no illegality in not communicating the 'good' entry to the > appellant.8. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of > this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1988 (Supp) SCC > 674 in which it was held that an un-communicated adverse report should > not form t
