Pankaj Kr. Mishra vs Union Of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7407/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO.10342/2015)

PANKAJ KR. MISHRA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. I.A. Nos.3/2015 and 95102/2018 are allowed in

terms of the prayer(s) made in the applications.

3. The crucial issue raised in this appeal pertains

to the promotion in 2151 posts in the cadre of Upper

Division Clerk (UDC) as on 2003. It is the case of

the respondents that on account of cadre

restructuring in the Central Secretariat Service

(CSS) there was a percolating effect of 2151

vacancies in the cadre of UDC arising in the Central

Secretariat Clerical Service, in 2003. The said 2151

Signature Not Verified vacancies had to be filled up in the ratio of 75:25 Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.08.03 17:11:39 IST Reason: by the seniority quota and Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination quota respectively. It is

1 the case of the appellants that as a matter of fact

there was no such cadre restructuring in the Central

Secretariat Clerical Service. According to them,

they have become qualified in the 25% quota meant for

Limited Departmental Competitive Examination category

from the year 2004 onwards and, therefore, the

contesting respondents, who are otherwise juniors to

them in UDC cadre, cannot get an ante dated promotion

on the basis of a hypothetical calculation of

vacancies available as on 2003.

4. We have heard Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. V. Mohana,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of

India and learned counsel appearing for the

contesting respondents extensively.

5. Mr. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants, also pointed out that in the process of

the ante dated promotion of Lower Division Clerks to

Upper Division Clerks and further as Assistants, some

of the Lower Division Clerks were promoted to

Assistants even without having actually served as

Upper Division Clerks or without having the required

length of service as Upper Division Clerk. It is

submitted that as per the settled legal position,

even for ad-hoc promotion, qualified and eligible

2 candidates, if available, cannot be overlooked. This

is seriously disputed by Ms. Mohana, learned senior

counsel appearing for the Union of India and learned

counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

6. If, as a matter of fact, any person has been

appointed to the cadre of Assistant without the

required qualification/experience, as mandated under

the Rules at the relevant time, and in case the

appellants have a case that they were available as

eligible, as per Rules, for such promotion, it is a

matter to be examined.

7. Therefore, we grant liberty to the appellants to

point out such instances of promotions granted

contrary to Rules, within a period of two months from

today. The Competent Authority shall examine such

instances and take appropriate remedial steps to

ensure that the promotions are done only as per

Rules. The appellants concerned or any other

affected party shall also be given an opportunity of

hearing in the process. The needful, as above, will

be done within a period of four months from the date

of receipt of the representation.

8. Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of,

making it clear that we have not otherwise interfered

with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

3

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

...….................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] NEW DELHI;

JULY 31, 2018.

4