Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) vs J.K. Prashar and Others

2024 INSC 65 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020)

DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

J.K. PRASHAR & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India are directed against the judgment dated 28 th May, 2019

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the

High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere

with the Order dated 17 th December, 2018 passed in CWP No. Signature Not Verified

20984/2016.

Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad

By the said judgment, the High Court had Date: 2024.01.29 18:29:37 IST Reason:

accepted the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and

1 Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020

reversed the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the post of

Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in

violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982

(hereinafter being referred to as ‘statutory rules’).

3. The appellant-CSIR has questioned the decision of the High

Court on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not eligible to be

promoted to the post of Under Secretary as he had never

performed the duties of a Section Officer on independent basis

and hence, he was not possessed of the eligibility criteria under

the Statutory rules.

4. The extant rule of statutory rules is extracted below:-

“Under Secretary/Administrative Officer(Rs. 10,000-325- 15,200) Recruitment to this Grade shall be made by promotion, on the basis of merit from amongst Section Officers (General) and Sr. Personal Asstts.(now re-designated as Private Secretaries) who have rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in the grade of Rs. 6500-200-10,500 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee which shall interview the eligible candidates.

i. Vacancies in this grade occurring in a year shall be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from amongst Section Officers (Gen.) and Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re- designated as Private Secretaries). In the event of non-availability of suitable officers for filling up vacancies earmarked for a Cadre, such unfilled vacancies shall not be filled up from officers of another Cadre; and

2 Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020

ii. 25% of the Private Secretaries who have completed minimum six years of approved service as Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-designated as Private Secretaries) be made to work as Section officer (Gen.) for a period of one year before they are considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer.

Note: Governing Body also approved appointments/selections made so far as Sr. Personal Asstts., now re-designated as Private Secretaries to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer (Gr. I) in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500.”

5. The High Court, upon an analysis of the factual and legal

scenario found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on

the basis of certificates issued to them on 1 st March, 2011

affirming that they had performed the duties of Section Officer in

the year preceding the date of the DPC i.e. 5 th March, 2011.

6. So far as case of respondent no. 1 is concerned, the High

Court took note of the Order dated 15th March, 2004 whereby, the

said respondent was formally appointed as Section Officer, which

fact was not denied by the respondents in their counter to the

writ petition.

7. During the course of oral submissions (supplemented by

written submissions), learned counsel for the appellant has

placed on record the certificates held by respondent nos. 2 and 3

3 Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020

whereby, they were given the benefit of one year’s experience as

Section Officers for being promoted to the post of Under

Secretary. A perusal of these certificates reflects that services of

respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on

attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of

them as Section Officer. It may be noted that the pertinent plea

raised by respondent no. 1 regarding he having been appointed as

Section Officer vide Order dated 15th March, 2004 was not

disputed by the appellant in its reply before the High Court.

8. Another plea was taken by the appellant before the learned

Tribunal that the promotion to the post of Under Secretary was

to be done as per merit and that respondent no. 1 was not graded

as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very

Good’. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us

because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 was interfered

with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post.

Thus, there was no impediment for the promotion by selection of

respondent No.1 to the post of Under Secretary under the

statutory rules. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion

that the action of the appellant in denying promotion to

4 Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020

respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly

reversed by the High Court.

9. During the pendency of the litigation, respondent no. 1 has

superannuated on 31st July, 2019.

10. In view of the above, we are of the firm view that the

impugned judgment rendered by the High Court does not require

any interference. However, we make it clear that the present

adjudication shall be confined to the case of respondent no. 1

and will not be considered as a precedent.

11. The appeals are dismissed in the above terms.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………...………………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

……………………………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

January 29, 2024.

5