STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSRIKANT CHAPHEKAR

                    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                    A
                               v.
                       SRIKANT CHAPHEKAR

                          SEPTEMBER 2, 1992

            [KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.)                              B

     Service Law:

       Promotiolt-£Jepartmental Promotion Committee-cAnnual confiden-
tial reports-Evaluation of-Supersession of employee based on-Partial ex- C
pungtion of remarks latel"-Subsequent promotion-dletrospec.tive claim-
State Administrative Tribunal-Directing promotion retrospectively-Validity
of-Courts to direct reconsideration of case only.

      The respondent, an Assistant Dlre<tor in the Town & Country
Planning Office of the appellant State, was superseded by the Departmen-       D
tal Promotion Committee on the basis of adverse annual confidential
reports which were partially expunged later. The respondent was sub-
sequently promoted. He filed application before the State Administrative
Tribunal claiming promotion from the date of bis supersession.
                                                                               E
      The Tribunal allowed the application holding that the remarks left
unexpunged could not be sole basis to deny pr.omotion. It directed the
State to treat the respondent to have been promoted from. a day earlier
than bis junior was promoted. The State filed the appeal by special leave.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court,                                         F

       HELD: 1. It is not the function of the Tribunal to assess the service
record of a Government servant and order bis promotion on that basis. It
Is for the DPC to evaluate the same and make re<ommendatlons based on
such evaluation. [pp. 347 G.H; 348-A]
                                                                               G
       2. In a case where the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that
a person was not considered for promotion or the consideration was
Illegal then the only direction which can be given Is to reconsider bis case
In accordance with law. It was not within the competence of the Tribunal
to have ordered deemed promotion of the respondent. [p. 348 A-BJ               H
                                     345
\

        346                   SUPREME COURT REPORT'.:>, ,992] Sl'PP. 1 S.C.R.

    A         3. This is not a fit case where even a direction to consider the
        respondent for promotion from the year 1981 can be given. The adverse
        reports were expunged on October 11, 1982. The only representation made
        by him was in the year 1984. Thereafter, the respondent kept quiet till
        November, 1991 when be approached the Tribunal. It would not be in the
    B   interest of justice to issue any such direction after a period of more than
        a decade. [p. 348 B-C]

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3507 of
        1992.

    C         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.92 of the Madhya Pradesh
        Administrative Tribunal Indore Bench in Original Application No.2854 of
        1991.

                Rajindra Singhvi and S.K Agnihotri for the Appellant.

    D           S.S.Ray, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.

    E       Srikant Chaphekar, Assistant Director, Town and Country Plauning
      Office, Madhya Pradesh was considered alongwith other Assistant Direc-
      tors by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on March 18, 1981
      for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and was not found fit for
      promotion on the basis of his service record. It is not disputed that a person
      junior to him was promoted. Chaphekar was, however, promoted to the
    F post of Deputy Director on January 24, 1986. He filed an application before
      the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in November 1991 seeking
      promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 when a
      person junior to him • ·as promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated
      February 21, 1992 allowed the application directing the State of Madhya
    G Pradesh to promote him to the post of Deputy Director with effect from
      1981 and to consider him for further promotion to the post of Joint
      Director from the date when the person junior to him was promoted. This
      appeal by way of special leave is by the State of Madhya Pradesh against
      the order of the Tribunal.

    H           It is not disputed that the DPC superseded the respondent on March
           STATE OF M.P. v. SRIKANT [KULDIP SINGH, J.]                  347

18, 1981 on the basis of adverse reports in his service record for the years A
1977-78 and 1978-79. His representation against the adverse reports was
accepted on October 11, 1982 and the remarks for the year 1978-79 were
completely expungned whereas for the year 1977-78 were partially ex-
punged. On May, 8, 1984 he submitted a representation to the Government
requesting that he be considered for the post of Deputy Director as the B
adverse remarks from his service record stood expugned. There is nothing
on the record to show that the respondent made any other representation
before the State Government. The Tribunal went into the merits of the
service record of the respondent and came to the conclusion that he could
not be superseded for promotion. The Tribunal based its findings on the
following reasonings:                                                        c
             "In our opinion, the remarks left unexpunged are noi
        such as may disentitle him for consideration. The remarks
        that 'he is intelligent officer' out weights the remarks that
        'he is late lazy and a late comer'. The remarks ~he is lazy,
        he is late comer' are vague and are of general nature. They
                                                                              D
        cannot be the sole basis to deny promotion particularly so
        when such remarks were not repeated in the following
        years. The respondents themselves found him fit and also
        promoted him to the post of Deputy Director in the year
        1986. Therefore, the applicant's non-consideration and                E
        supersession in 1981 was wholly unjustified ... The petition
        succeeds, the respondents are directed to treat the
        petitioner as deemed to have been promoted a day earlier
        than his immediate junior was promoted to the post of
        Deputy Director on proforma basis."
                                                                              F
       We are of the view that the Tribunai fell into patent error in sub-
stituting itself for the DPC. The Remarks in the annual confidential report
are based on the assessment of the work and conduct of the official/officer
concerned for a period of one year. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in G
reaching the conclusion that the remarks were vague and of a general
nature. Jn any case, the Tribunal 'outstepped its jurisdiction in reaching the
conclusion that the adverse remarks were not sufficient to deny the respon-
dent his promotion to the post of Deputy Director. It is not the function
of the Tribunal to assess the service record of a Government servant and
order his promotion on that basis. It is for the DPC to evaluate the same H
    348                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A and make recommendations based on such evaluation. This Court has
    repeatedly held that in a case where the Court{fribunal comes to the
    conclusion that a person was not considered for pormotion or the con-
    sideration was illegal then the only direction which can be given is to
    reconsider his case in accordance with law. It was not within the com-
B   petence of the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, to have ordered
    deemed promotion of the respondent.

        We are further of the view that this is not a fit case 'where even a
  direction to consider the respondent for pormotion from the year 1981 can
  be given. The adverse reports were expunged on October 11, 1982. The
C only representation made by him was in the year 1984. Thereafter the
  respondent kept quiet till November, 1991 ~hen he approached the
  Tribunal. It would not be in the interest of justice to issue any such
  direction after a period of more than a decade.

           We allow the appeal set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh
D Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench dated February 21, 1991 and dis-
    miss the application of the respondent before the Tribunal. There shall be
    no order as to consts.

    R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.