9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is open to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) to differ from the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). 2. If so, whether reasons must be given for differing from the recommendations of the DPC. 3. Whether the Tribunal's order of "deemed promotion" was justified. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether it is open to the ACC to differ from the recommendations of the DPC The judgment clarifies that the recommendations of the DPC are advisory in nature and not binding on the appointing authority. The ACC, being the appointing authority, has the discretion to differ from the recommendations of the DPC in the public interest. This principle is supported by the Recruitment Rules dated 6-1-1975 and the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 30-12-1976 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, which state that the DPC is a recommendatory body and its recommendations are subject to approval by the appointing authority. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the ACC can differ from the DPC's recommendations. Issue 2: Whether reasons must be given for differing from the recommendations of the DPC The judgment emphasizes that while the ACC has the authority to differ from the DPC's recommendations, it must provide reasons for doing so to avoid any accusations of arbitrariness. These reasons must be recorded in the file. The court found that in the instant case, no reasons were recorded for differing from the DPC's recommendations, which led to the Tribunal's observation of arbitrariness. However, the judgment also clarifies that these reasons do not need to be communicated to the officer concerned but must be available in the file for judicial review if challenged. Issue 3: Whether the Tribunal's order of "deemed promotion" was justified The court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering "deemed promotion" for the respondent. The Tribunal's decision was based on the ACC's failure to provide reasons for differing from the DPC's recommendations. However, the court noted that granting "deemed promotion" was not within the Tribunal's purview, as it is essentially a matter for the ACC to decide. The court set aside the Tribunal's order of "deemed promotion" but directed the ACC to reconsider the case of the respondent on merits within three months, taking into account the observations made in the judgment. If the respondent is found suitable, the ACC may grant promotion with consequential benefits of seniority and salary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order of "deemed promotion" but directing the ACC to reconsider the respondent's case within three months. The ACC must provide reasons for differing from the DPC's recommendations and consult the UPSC if necessary before making a final decision. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the promotion process while reaffirming the discretionary powers of the ACC.
|
