Holding

The DPC is not obligatorily required to record reasons for not promoting a senior officer unless the governing rules expressly mandate such recording.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan promoted thirteen officers under Rule 28‑B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, nine on seniority‑cum‑merit and four on merit. Sriram Verma, a senior officer, claimed his junior Ashok Kumar Sanvaria was promoted over him and appealed to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to record reasons for the omission. The High Court upheld this view, holding that the DPC must indicate reasons for not promoting a senior. The State contended that the Rules do not obligate the DPC to record such reasons and that natural‑justice principles do not apply. The Supreme Court examined precedents and the language of the Rules, concluding that while recording reasons is desirable for fairness, it is not mandatory unless expressly required by the Rules. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders.

Issues considered

Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee is obligated under Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 to record reasons for not selecting a senior officer when promotion is on a seniority‑cum‑merit basis.
Whether the principles of natural justice require the DPC to provide reasons for superseding a senior with a junior.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954s. Rule 28-B
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958s. Rule 16

Subjects

promotiondepartmental promotion committeeseniority‑cum‑meritservice lawnatural justicereason recordingadministrative lawRajasthan Administrative Service Rules

Judgment

STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
v.
SRIRAM VERMA AND ANR

OCTOBER 29, 1996

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARJPOORNAN, JJ.] 8

Service Law :

- Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954-Rule 28-B-Clauses
{I J and [bJ of Suh Rule [11 ]-Promotion-Seniority-cum-merit basis-
Junior Promoted-No reasons recorded by D.P.C.-Held-Notobligatory- C
Promotion based on merit-Selecting authorities to follow the method of
grading all the candidates appearing before them-Suggestion given.

The appellant state promoted thirteen officers, nine on the basis
of seniority and merit and four on the basis of merit. The respondent D
challenged the promotion order before the Appellate Tribunal
complaining that his junior has been promoted. Tribunal allowed
the appeal. On appeal before the High Court. it was observed that
D.P.C. must indicate in the proceeding the reason for with-holding
promotion to a candidate so that Court can see what appealed to the
mind of D.P.C. for not giving promotion. Against the order of the E
High Court this appeal has been preferred.

The appellant State contended that it was obligatory upon the
D.P.C. to record reasons for not selecting an officer unless the rules
expressly provide.
F
The. respondent contended that when a senior is ignored and .
junior is selected it is obligatory upon D.P.C. to record reasons because
the selection is liable to he challenged in court of law.

Allowing the appeal, this Court G
HELD : 1.1. When the promotion is made by the Departmental
Promotion Committee it is difficult to say either that the D.P.C. should
record reasons for not selecting a senior or at least the record should
indicate some reason. lt is one thing to say that such a course is fair
and desirable, it is altogether different to say that such a course is H
35
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A obligatory or necessary in all cases, in the latter event the selection
made are liable to be set aside for not complying with the said
requirement. But having regard to the nature of function ofselection- •
and taking into consideration the fact that the only right of the
government servant is a right to be considered and not a right to
promotion, it will not be possible to infer the requirement of recording
B reasons in all situations. 142-F, 43-AI

Saraf Kumar Das v. Vishwajit Patnaik, 119951 Suppl. 1 SCC 434,
relied on.

State Bank ofIndia v. Kashinath Kher, AIR (1996) SC 1328, Union
C of India v. E.G. Nambudri, [199113 SCC 38 and Union of India v. NP.
Dhamania, 119951 Suppl. 1 SCC I, relied on.

1.2. The procedure adopted by the selecting body should be fair
and should lend credence to the process. It should be such as to inspire
confidence in all concerned within practicable limits. It would be a
D wholesome step for the Govt. of Rajasthan, for that matter all
Governments, to provide either by amendment of Rules or by general
instructions that in the matter of promotion on the basis of merit
cum seniorHy the selecting authority should follow the method of
granting all the candidates appearing before them. 143-BC)

E R.S. Das v. Union of India, 119861 Supp. SCC 617; Union Public
Service Commission v. Hiany Lal Dev and others, [19881 2 SCC 242;
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Services v. Dr. K. Kalyana
Raman and other, J19921 Supp 2 SCC 481; Major General JPS Diwan v.
Union of India and others, [19951 3 SCC 383; Bhagat Raja v. Union of
India and others, AIR (1967) SC 1606 CB referred to.
F
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13352 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.94 of the Rajasthan High
G Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 3268 of 1994.

K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh and Ms. Kusum for the Appellant.

Sushil Kr. Jain and A.P. Dhamija for the Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
STATEOFRAJ.v. S. VER,V!A[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 37

B.P. JEEV AN REDDY. J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the A
parties.

The respondent, Sriram Verma, is an officer belonging to the Rajasthan
Administrative Service. By an order dated March 24, 1991, thirteen officers
were "selected and appointed in senior pay-scale .... subject to review and
revision for the year 1990-91 as prescribed in the separate list mentioned B
in Rule 28(B)(b)" of Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954.
Thirteen officers selected and appointed under the said order were
mentioned under two categories separately. Nine officers were mentioned
under the heading "On the basis of seniority and merit" and four officers
were mentioned under the heading "On the basis of merit". Among the
nine officers promoted on the basis of seniority and merit, "Sri Ashok C
Kumar Sanvaria [Scheduled Caste]" was mentioned at Sr. No. 8.

The respondent, Sri ram Verma, who is also a member of a Scheduled
Caste, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Rajasthan
Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. He complained that his junior, Ashok
Kumar Sanvaria, has been promoted while he himself has been overlooked D
wrongly. The learned advocate appearing for the state of Rajasthan
submitted before the Tribunal that an enquiry was pending against the
respondent under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services [Classification,
Control and Appeal] Rules, 1958 and also because the impugned promotions
were in the nature of urgent/temporary promotions, the respondent herein
was not promoted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the E
respondent holding that "a perusal of the written reply filed by the
Government does not very clearly indicate whether the appellant's case
for promotion was considered by the D.P.C. or not". The Tribunal observed
that during the arguments, no doubt, the advocate for the State did mention
that an enquiry was pending against the respondent but that assertion was F
squarely denied by the respondent's counsel. The respondent's case was
that "on the date of D.P.C., there was no enquiry pending against him".
The Tribunal observed that it is not clear whether the respondent's case
for promotion was considered by the D.P.C. or not. If an enquiry was
pending against him, the Tribunal observed, his name should have been
kept in a sealed cover after considering him and if no enquiry was pending G
against him, "then Clear recommendations should have been recorded by
the D.P.C. in respect of the appellant". The appeal was allowed accordingly
and the Government was directed to place the respondent's case for
promotion to the selection scale against the vacancies for the year 1990-91
before the DPC. The DPC was directed to record its clear recommendations
about the respondent. H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S C.R.

A The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Government of
Rajasthan before the High Court. The High Court says that it sent for the
record relating to regular selection by D.P.C. and then says: "We have got
the record and after going through the same, find that the name of respondent
No. I was there before the D.P.C. but no reason has been provided in the
proceedings of the D.P.C. as to why the respondent was not considered fit
B for promotion". The High Court then referred to the submission of the
counsel for the State that there was an adverse entry agains: the respondent.
The High Court saw the entry but without expressing any opinion whether
it is really adverse or not, observed: "We may say that when his name was
considered by the D.P.C. process of reasoning or application of mind had
to be indicated at the time of D.P.C. meeting as to why he is not being
C promoted or as to why his promotion is being withheld. They did not say
that they were withholding promotion. on account of adverse entry. This is
the minimum requirement of law which is being enunciated by courts
from time to time and this law is being observed in breach". The High
Court added further:

D "Even before us, the learned counsel for the State says that
D.P.C. do not give their reasons when somebody is ignored or
withheld from promotion. This is not the correct state of law.
D.P.C. is not to write a long judgment but whatever occurs in
their mind to withhold promotion, that must be indicated in the
proceedings of the D.P.C., so that in case the matter is challenged
E before a Court of law, the Court can see what appealed to the
mind of D.P.C. for not giving promotion. -
Copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Rajasthan so that he may be able to advise all
F authorities and Departments keep this in view while sitting in
D.P.C."

The learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that it is not
obligatory upon the D.P.C. to record reasons for not selecting an officer
G and/or for selecting a junior while not selecting the senior. Counsel
submitted that unless the rules expressly so provide, no such obligation
can be deduced from the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954.
Counsel submitted that the principles of natural justice have no application
to such selections. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court
in Sara/ Kumar Das v. Vishwajit Patnaik, [1995] Suppl. (I) S.C.C. 434
H and the several decisions referred to therein. Counsel for the respondent,
STATE OF RAJ. v. S. VERMA [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 39

however, disputed the said propositions and submitted that when a senior A
is ignored and junior is selected, it is obligatory upon the D.P.C. to record
reasons therefor. This requirement, the learned counsel submitted, has to
be inferred because the selection is liable to be challenged in a court of
law and unless there is something on record to indicate the reasons for
ignoring a senior or for selecting a junior, the court will not be in a position
to judge the fairness of selection. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of B
this Court in State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, AIR (l 996) S.C.1328,
Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, [1991] 3 SCC 38 and Union a/India v.
NP. Dhamania, [1995] Suppl. I SCC I.

Before dealing with the submissions, it is necessary to record a
statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-State. He stated C
that so far as the respondent is concerned, no grievance survives on his
part in as much as the order of the Tribunal [as confirmed by the High
Court] has been implemented and the respondent has been given what was
due to him. The counsel stated that the State is not interested in disturbing
what is already given to the respondent but that they only want a decision
on the proposition enunciated by the High Court that where a senior is D
overlooked and a junior is selected, the selecting authority must indicate
the reason for doing so. The above statement is recorded.

It must be noticed in the first instance that the promotion to the
selection scale is on a twin basis, viz., seniority-cum-merit as well as merit. E
The case of the respondent and his Junior, Sri Sanvaria, was considered on
the basis of·seniority-cum-merit. The selection has been made by the
Departmental Promotion Committee constituted according to rules. The
question is whether the D.P.C. is under an obligation to record reasons for
selecting a junior while ignoring a senior. The High Court has observed
that even though the selecting authority is not required to write a long F
order giving reasons for not selecting a senior and for selecting his junior,
the proceedings of the D.P.C. must indicate in some manner as to why a
senior was ignored and his junior was selected. The questions is whether
the High Court is right in saying so?
G
~ With a view to clear the ground, we may mention that we are not
dealing with a case of initial appointment. We are also not dealing with a
case where promotion is exclusively on the basis of merit. We are concerned
with a case where promotion is on the basis of seniority and merit i.e.,
seniority-cum-merit. It is in such a case that the question is arising whether
the selecting authority is required to record reasons for not selecting a H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A senior and for selecting a junior. In R.S. Dass v. Union of India, [1986]
Suppl. S.C.C. 617 the Bench comprising Sabyasachi Mukharji and K.N. .
Singh, JJ. considered the amended Regulations 54 and 55 of the Indian \
Admini"strative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
Prior to its amendment in I 977 the Regulation required that where it is
proposed to supersede any member of the State Service "the committee
B shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession''. After the
amendment, the Regulation requires the Selection Committee to classify
eligible officers as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' or 'unfit', as the

-
case may be, on an over-all consideration and assessment of their service
record. After such categorisation, the Committee has to arrange the names
of officers in the select list in accordance with the procedure laid down in
c Regulation 55. The Bench opined thatthe amended Regulation gave primacy
to merit and that in such a case it may happen that a junior officer, if
~ategorised as 'outstanding' or 'very good' may supersede his seniors.
The Bench rejected the argument that in such a situation, it is necessary to
record reasons for superseding a senior. The following observations of the
Bench are relevant.
D
"Learned counsel urged reasons if recorded ensure objectivity
and impartiality. In the absence of reasons the committee may
act in arbitrary manner to supersede senior officers which would
be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We find no
E merit in the submission. Article 16 ensures equality in matters
relating to appointment and promotion to an office or post under
the State. It enjoins State not to practise discrimination in matters
relating to appointment and promotion. A member of the State
Civil Service eligible for selection for promotion to the l.A.S.
has right to be considered along with others for selection for
F promotion. If eligible officers are considered on merit, in an
objective manner no Government servant has any legal right to
insist for promotion nor any such right is protected by the Arts.
14 or 16 of the Constitution. Article 16 does not insist that
reasons should be recorded for the non-selection of a member
of a State Service."
G
• -=- ~

The Bench also rejected the argument that since the Regulations do
not lay down "ny guidelines for categorisation of the officers as aforesaid,
the categorisation is bound to be arbitrary. It held that since the
categorisation is made objectively on the basis of the service record of the
H officers, there is no room for any arbitrariness. This decision was followed
STATE OF RAJ. v. S. VERMA [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 41

by another Bench (M.P. Thakkar and N.D. Ojha, JJ.) in Union Public A
Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and others, [1988] 2 S.C.C. 242
while considering identical provisions in l.P.S. Promotion Regulations.
The Bench reiterated that it is not necessary to record the reasons for not
selecting a person who is within the field of eligibility.

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. B
Kalyana Raman and others, [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 481 was a case
concerning appointment to the post of a professor in the Institute. It was

... held that in the absence of any requirement in the Rules or Regulations
obliging the Selection Committee to record reasons, no such requirement
can be inferred. It was held, following R.S. Dass, that principles of natural
justice are not attracted to such a situation and that recording the reasons C
was not a necessary requirement. In Major General lP.S. Dewan v.Union
of India and Others, [1995] 3 SCC 383, this Bench took the view that
unless the Rules so require, the Selection Committee/Selection Board is
not obliged to record reasons why they are not selecting a particular person,
as the case may be. In Sarai Kumar Dash and Others v. Biswajit Patnaik
and Others, (1995] Suppl. 1SCC434 a Bench of this Court(K. Ramaswamy 0
and N. Venkatachala,JJ.) considering a case where the promotion was on
the basis of merit-cum-suitability. The Public Service Commission adopted
the method of grading or categorisation, as it may be called, and then
made the selection. It was contended that since the reasons were not recorded
by the P.S.C. for the recommendations made by it, the selection was bad. E
This contention was rejected following the decisions aforementioned.

Now coming to the Rules applicable herein, the position is this:
Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan
Administrative Service Rules, 1954 read thus:
F
"(ii) (a) The Committee shall consider the cases of all seniormost
persons who are eligible and qualified for promotion to the
class of posts concerned under these rules and shall prepare a
list containing names of the persons found suitable on the basis
of seniority-cum-merit and/ or on the basis of merit, as the case G
may be, as per the criteria for promotion laid down in these
rules, equal to the number of vacancies determined under rule
relating to "Determination of vacancies" of these rules. The list
so prepared on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and/or on the
basis of merit, as the case may be, shall be arranged in the order
of seniority on the category of posts from which selection is H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A made.

(b) The Committee shall also prepare a separate list on the basis
of seniority-cum-merit and/or on the basis of merit, as the case
may be, as per the criteria for promotion laid down in the rules,
containing names of persons equal to the number of persons
B selected in the list prepared under (a) above to fill temporary or
permanent vacancies which may occur subsequently. The list so
prepared on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and/or on the basis
of merit shall be arranged in the order of seniority in the category
of posts from which selection shall be made. Such a list shall be
reviewed and revised by the Departmental promotion Committee
c that meets in the subsequent year and that such list shall remain
in force till the end of the last day of the next year or till the
Departmental Promotion Committee meets, whichever is
earlier."

D The clauses aforesaid neither provide for grading nor do they require
the recording of reasons for superseding a senior. So far as the promotion
on the basis of seniority-cum-merit is concerned, it only says that the
Committee shall consider the names of all senior and qualified persons
"and shall prepare a list containing names of the persons found suitable on
the basis of seniority-cum-merit". After preparation of such list, the officers
E included therein shall be arranged in the order of inter se seniority obtaining
in the feeder post. In such a situation and when the promotion is made by
the Departmental Promotion Committee, we find it difficult to say either
that ordinarily the D.P.C. should record reasons for not selecting a senior
(and selecting his junior) or that at least the record should indicate some
reason therefore. It is one thing to say that such a course is fair and desirable
F but it is altogether a different thing to say that such a course is obligatory
or necessary in all cases for in the latter event. the Selections made are
liable to be set aside for not complying with the said requirement. The
High Court has pointed out that such selections are likely to be challenged
in a Court of law and if no reasons are recorded--0r at least the record
G indicates the reasons--for superseding a senior and selecting his junior,
the Court would not be in a position to consider the grievance effectively
and satisfactorily. This argument brings to our mind the decision in Bhagat
Raja v. Union of India and others, AIR (1967) SC 1606. (C.B.) but that
was a case where the order questioned before the Court was a quasi judicial
order. It is equally true that even in administrative matters, this Court has
H been insisting upon the duty to act fairly which may sometimes require an
STATE OF RAJ. v. S. VERMA [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 43

opportunity of hearing. But having regard to the nature of function of A
selection-and taking into consideration the fact that the only right of the
; government servant is a right to be considered and not a right to
promotion-we do not think it possible to infer the requirement of
recording reasons in all situations. At the same time, we think that it is
always desirable that procedure adopted by the selecting body should be
fair and such as to lend credence to the process; it should be such as to B
inspire confidence in all concerned within the practicable limits. From
this point of view, it would be a wholesome step for the Government of
Rajasthan-for that matter, all governments-to provide either by
.... amendment of Rules or by general instructions that in the matter of
Promotions on the basis of merit or merit-cum-seniority/merit-cum-
suitability, the selecting authority should follow the method of grading all C
the candidates appearing before them. This requirement we are suggesting
in cases where the Rules do not provide for grading or for awarding marks
or for recording of reason for over-looking a senior; where, however, the
Rules already provide for awarding of marks or any other appropriate
method, our suggestion may not be applicable. It must also be understood
clearly that ours is a suggestion to avoid complaints of arbitrariness and D
primarily with a view to make the process credible. The governments
shall keep this underlying object in mind and cause appropriate amendments
or issue appropriate instructions. It is obvious that any such Amendments/
instructions shall have only propsective operation.
E
For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High
Court and that of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal impugned
herein are set aside. But as recorded herein above, this order shall in no
manner affect the first respondent, or for that matter, the second respondent.
There shall be no order to costs.
F
Copies of this order shall be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of State
Governments and Union Territories as well as to the Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India.

S.V.K.I. Appeal allowed. G

-