Holding

The merit‑based promotion scheme for scientists/engineers in the Department of Space remains valid, and the Tribunal and High Court directions to devise a new DPC procedure were unwarranted; the appeals are allowed.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Madras High Court which had directed the Department of Space (ISRO) to devise a new format for recording Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) minutes and to review the promotion cases of two employees, B. Annathurai and E. Chandiran Gandhiji. Both employees had repeatedly failed to appear for interviews and declined to answer questions during the DPC proceedings, despite being given multiple opportunities. The Court examined the Office Memorandum dated 9 November 1998 and earlier Government Notifications (30 September 1976 and 22 February 1988) and held that the merit‑based promotion scheme applicable to scientists and engineers in the Department of Space was valid and not overridden by the memorandum. It further held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in ordering a new DPC procedure, as the existing elaborate, long‑standing procedure was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders and allowed the appeals.

Issues considered

The applicability of Office Memorandum No. 2/41/97‑PIC dated 9 Nov 1998 to the Department of Space's promotion procedures.
Whether the Tribunal and High Court were justified in directing the employer to evolve a new DPC format and to review the promotion cases retrospectively.
Whether the respondents' repeated non‑appearance at DPC interviews bars them from seeking promotion.
Whether the existing merit‑based promotion scheme for scientists/engineers in the Department of Space is valid and must be followed.

Subjects

promotionmerit based promotionDepartment of SpaceISRODepartmental Promotion CommitteeFlexible Complementing Schemenon‑appearanceservice lawadministrative lawwrit petitionCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 825

---"I UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
V.
B. ANNATHURAI & ANR.
Civil Appeal Nos.1128-1129 of 2009
FEBRUARY· 20, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Service law: Promotion - Department of Space -
. Scientist/Technical Assistant - Merit based promotion -
Elaborate procedure for assessing suitability followed for long
time by the Department - On facts, candidates for promotion t
absenting in almost all selection processes inspite of several
opportunities - Not promoted - OA seeking direction to
employer to evolve a new procedure for recommendations .of
DPC - OA allowed and upheld by High Court - Justification of
- Held: Not justified - In matter of promotion of Scientists/ D
Engineers working in area like Space, merit is prime
consideration - Having taken unilateral decision of not
appearing in interview, candidates cannot seek to take
advantage of their own wrong - Direction issued by Tribunal
upheld by High Court to evolve a new procedure for E
recommendations of DPC was unwarranted and is set aside.
Respondent no.1 was working as technical Assistant
··~
and respondent no.2 was working as Scientist Engineer
'SC' in appellant organization i.e. LPSC, which was one
of the five centres of ISRO under DOS. They were F
considered by the Department Promotion Committee
(DPC) for promotional post. However their case was
deferred. After one year they were called again for
interview. But they did not appear. Both the respondents
filed-separate OA before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed G
reconstitution of DPC by including a member of SC/ST
)
"' community as prayed for by the respondents, which was
duly complied with. Both the respondents were called for
interview but they did not attend, in spite of several
825 H
,

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A e>pportunities. Although they a·ppea:re~ before the
Selection Committee but they ref~s~d to answer 'any of
the questions put to them by DPC. According.ly they were
not recommended for« prornoti()'n.. · ·
The OAs were disposed of by the Tribunal directing
B the appellants to evolve a proper format for recording the
minutes .of DPC taking into account the various
requirements and then to hold a review DPC retro-
spectively.
c Aggrieved appellants filed writ petitions before the
High Court, which were dismissed. Hence these appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum
dated 9.11.1998, makes it clear that the directions
0
contained therein are not applicable to the department of
Space as in the case of Department of Space and Atomic
Energy and DRDO. It was stated therein that the
recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission to make
modified Flexible Complementing Scheme of promotion
E for Group 'A' Scientists for all the Departments of the
Central Government without any special dispensation for
any individu.al department, was not accepted by the
Government and the merit based promotion existing in
these Departments was allowed to continue. The said
F stipulation in the office memorandum was overlooked by
the Tribunal and the High Court. [Para 16] [835-E]
2. A perusal of the statement showing review of the
cases of the respondents by the DPC, indicate that both
G the respondents absented themselves in almost all the
selection processes before the DPC. The statements
clearly indicate that although several opportunities were
granted to the respondents but they chose not to appear
in the interviews held for the purpose of considering their
H cases for promotion whereas before the court, they
' ', ,,· ·.

UNION OF INDIA & 0RS. V.: B: ANNATHURAI & "ANR.- 827

---~
argueq for their prom.otion with retrospective effect. If the A
responde{lts despite b~ing given oppodunity tq ~·ppea.r
.in the selection chose. n.ot to app~ar. in the ·~elec~ion' and
stayed away from it they cannot seek "tor direction from
the court ,for their. promotion without appearing in the
interview from a retrospective date. The reason for such B
non-appearance in the interview.when called for selection
and also for not answering questions in the selection when
they appeared was not given by the respondents. In any
case such action on their part was at the peril of their own
service career and also definitely detrimental to their c
interest. Having taken such a vital unilateral decision they
now cannot seek to take advantage of their own wrong.
[Para 17] [835-H; 838-B]
3. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to notice
that the Department was following an elaborate procedure D
for assessing the suitability or otherwise of the. candidates
for promotion and the said procedure was based on the
guidelines issued by the Government, which procedure
was followed for a very long· period of time, and therefore,
the order and the ,direction issued by the Tribunal which E
was upheld by the High Court to evolve a new procedure
for the recommendations of the DPC was unwarranted
... and uncalled for. [Para 18] [838-F]
4. On close scrutiny of the procedure, which is a part
of the Government Notifications dated 30.09.1976 and F
22.02.1988, it is clear that the Department has a detailed
procedure for assessing the suitability of the candidates
for promotion. As per such procedure overall assessment
of the candidates has to be taken into consideration i.e.
keenness exhibited by the official in. the pursuit of his G
profession, ability to take up higher responsibilities,
.>
"' managerial/leadership qualities, theoretical knowledge,
etc. and more specifically achievements of the candida~es
being reviewed and consequently such a procedure
cannot be termed as either arbitrary or unreasonable. In H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A the matter of promotion to the job of Scientists/Engineers
working in area like Space, there is no possibility for '•
compromising in the matter of merit and therefore merit
is prime consideration which is given emphasis.
Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case,
8 the findings and conclusions recorded by the Tribunal
and upheld by the High Court cannot be sustained [Paras
19, 20] [838; 839-H; 839-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal Nos.
1128-1129 of 2009
c
From the Judgement and Order dated 24.04.2007 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos.
41011 of 2005 and 41012 of 2005.
Mohan K. Parasarn ASG, K. Radhakrishnan, Kiran
D Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad, D.S. Mahra for the Appellants.
Satya Mitra Garg, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
E
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and
order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras by which the High Court
F upheld the common order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal') and dismissed the writ petitions
filed by the appellant- Union of India.
G 3. By the aforesaid order the Tribunal quashed the minutes
of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated
13.10.2003 in respect of both the respondents herein and
directed the appellants herein to evolve a proper format for
recording minutes of DPC and to review the case of the two
H respondents, namely, Shri B. Annathurai and Shri E. Chandiran
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 829
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

--c;. 'I Gandhiji respectively for promotion to the post of Scientist/ A
Engineer 'SB' and Scientist/Engineer 'SD' with effect from
01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000 respectively. Review applications
filed by the appellan,ts were also dismissed by the Tribunal
through a common order dated 26.10.2005 as being in the
nature of an appeal . The writ petitions filed by the Union of India B
and others against the aforesaid findings were dismissed by
the High Court.
4. A time bound merit based and non-vacancy oriented
scheme of promotion called Flexible Complementary Scheme
(for short FCS) has been in existence in Indian Space Research c
Organisation (for short 'ISRO')/Department of Space (for short
'DOS') for promotion of its Scientific and Technical personnel
in all the four groups (A, B, C & D) right from the year 1976.
Emphasis was on merit and not on seniority unlike in other
Ministries/Departments of Government of India. The Department D
of Space was vested with powers to formulate its own policies
including norms for recruitment and promotion of its personnel
and to this extent, the DPT orders were not applicable to ISRO/
Department of Space. In 1972, ISRO was brought under DOS
by the Govt. of India.
E
5. The Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (for short
'LPSC'), the appellant Organization is one of the five major
Centres of ISRO under DOS, Government of India. The Ministry
of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued OM No.
2/41/97-PIC, dated 9.11.1998 as a continuation of O.M. No. F
A.42014/2/86-Admn 1(A), dated 28.5.1986 introducing Flexible
Complementing Scheme of promotion in other Scientific and
Technological Departments which was not applicable to ISRO/
DOS. Relevant portion of the said OM is extracted hereunder:
" ....... 1. The recommendation of the Pay Commission that G
the modified Flexible Complementing Scheme proposed
.J
"' by it should be applicable in all the Departments, including
the Departments of Space, Atomic Energy and DRDO
without any special dispensation for any individual
department, has not been accepted. The existing scheme
H
"
830 . SUP~EME COURT REPORTS . [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A of merit based promotion system covering the Group 'A',
'f .~ -
'B', 'C' Personnel, as presently applicable in the
Department of Atomic Energy, the Department of Space
and tfle DRDO shall continue.
2. The recommendatio.n of the Pay Commission to define
B "Scientific Administrators" and to exclude them from the
benefit of in situ promotions under Flexible Complementing
Scheme and to bring them under the ambit of "Assured
Career Progression Scheme'' formulated by the Pay
Commission has not been accepted. However, it has been -~

c decided that the Flexible Complementing Scheme
· should, as per its original objective, be made applicable
only to scientists and technologists holding scientific posts
in Scientific and Technology Departments and who were
engaged in scientific activities and services ............ "
6. The respondent no. 1 herein namely B. Annathurai was
D
working as Technical Assistant 'C' in the grade of Rs. 5500-
175-9000 whereas respondent No. 2, namely Shri E. Chandiran
Gandhiji was working as Scientist/Engineer 'SC'. Both were
working in the appellants Organization i.e. Liquid Propulsion
Systems Centre.
E 7. Respondent No. 1 was considered by the DPC for
promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'SB' in the review
held on 20.4.1999 along with 18 other candidates. Cases of
five candidates including the respondent No. 1 were deferred

F
by DPC to be reassessed after one year as per prevalent norms.
In view of certain special order issued by the Department, the
·-
respondent No. 1 became eligible for consideration once again
along with others even before completion of one year period.
But respondent no. 1 did not appear for the interview, although
he was called for the same.
G 8. Respondent no. 2 was interviewed along with 19 other
candidates. Cases of six candidates including the respondent
no. 2 were deferred by the DPC. Respondent no. 2 was called
,» "';
for interview again after one year on 19.12.2000 but he did not
appear. Respondent no. 1 was again called for .interview on
H 30.2.2000 but again he did not appear.
UNION:OF INDIA.& ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 831
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~ 9. Both the respondents filed separate O.A. before the A
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, (for short
'Tribunal') praying for setting aside the DPC proceedings held
on 20.4.1-999 and 23.12.1999 respectively. They stated that the·
appellants are unhappy with them for repeatedly approaching
the Tribunal with regard to promotion. By a common order dated · 8
4.7 .2001 the learned Tribunal directed to reconstitute the DPC ·
by including a member of SC/ST community as prayed for by
., J respondents. In compliance with the said direction the appellant
organization reconstituted the DPC and called both the
respondents for interview but they did not attend. They were c
given further opportunities even subsequent thereafter on
1.4.1999 and 1.1.2000 respectively. Although they appeared
before the Selection Committee but they refused to answer any
of the questions put to them by the DPC members. Therefore,
the respondents were not recommended for promotion.
D
10. Respondents were given further opportunities to appear
in subsequent selections held for the purpose but they did not
appear. they did not appear in the interview which was
conducted as perTribunal's order dated 28.8.2003 as such they
were not recommended for promotion by the duly reconstituted E
DPC. The respondents filed O.As. before Tribunal which were
disposed off by the Tribunal by a common order dated
11.08.2005 directing the appellants to evolve a proper format
for recording the minutes of the DPC taking into account the
various requirements and then to hold a Review DPC F
retrospectively i.e. as on 01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000 respectively.
11. Being aggrieved the appellants herein filed writ
petitions before the High Court of Madras. The High Court found
no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed the same. It did not
.._ find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the Ld. Tribunal G
....... and directed the writ appellants to implement the directions of
the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order of the High Court. Hence the
appellants filed the Special Leave Petitions on which leave stand
. granted. H
... ;

832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
"'
A .. . 12. The High C()urt in paragraphs 10, 1fand 12 of the .,_..
.· impugned judg111~nt 09served as follows: ·
"10. The procedure for conducting DPC was issued by
the Government of India in G.I. Min: of per. & Trg. OM No.
2/41/97.:PIC, dated 9.11.1998 as a continuation of O.M.
B No. A.42014/2/86-Admn 1(A), dated 28.5.1986. The
allegation of the applicants is that the authorities have
disobeyed the said instructions issued by the Government
of India. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support -~

of these two writ petitions, the contention of the appellants '
c is that there is no apportionment of marks for interview
and ACRs in the scheme of promotion followed for
Scientific Assistants, Technical Assistants and Scientists/
Engineers and therefore, the DPCs, need not mention
any thing about these two elements of review in the ,._
D minutes. When Government of India has specifically issued
instructions/guidelines to be followed in such matters, the
appellants/authorities are bound to follow the same.
Without complying with the said instructions, the appellants
have taken a flimsy stand that such a practice is in vogue
E for the last three decades. Prolonged continuation of
illegality cannot acquire the status of legality for any
purpose. Further from paragraph No. 16 of the order of
the Tribunal, we are able to see that the learned counsel ._ .

for the authorities represented before the Tribunal that he
F would personally brief the authorities about the need for
proper documentation of the DPC proceedings, probably
reaiizing the mistake committed by the authorities. In such
circumstances,. taking a stand by the authorities that
everything is well with them, does not appear to be fair
and therefore, we are unable to appreciate the stand taken
G
by the appellants.
11. Further more, the Tribunal, to find out whether the
,;.
••
1'

authorities have acted fairly and considered the cases of
the applicants in both the writ petition herein had called for
H the original minutes of the DPC held on 13.10.2003 and
\

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 833
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
- ..., found the entire procedure adopted by the authorities to A
be illegal, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The
Tribunal, had scrupulously analysed the case in depth as
could be seen from paras 12 and 13 of jts order, in the
light of the discrimination and injustice meted out to both
the applicants in both the writ petitions just for the reason B
that they have knocked the doors of justice, and had
-I
quashed the DPC proceedings held on 13.10.2003. The
~ said files were also placed before us for our perusal. Having
gone through the entire files submitted by the appellants,
we are unable to take a different stand from that of the one c
taken by the Tribunal, since the entire proceedings depicts
/
a clear picture of go-bye given to the instructions issued
in this regard by the Government of India.
12. Having gone through the entire materials placed on
record, including the original files submitted by the D
appellants and the order of the Tribunal, we are unable to
find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record
or any perversity in approach of the Tribunal, so as to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find E
no merits in both these writ petitions."
13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the Tribunal as also the High Court failed to appreciate the fact
that the DPC procedure and the recording of minutes is the
procedure which has been followed for more than three decades F
in the Department of Space. He further submitted that Para 10
of the judgment of the High Court, quoted above, suffers from
an error apparent on the face of record, since the Division Bench

.. ~
had not adverted to the stipulations contained in the first
paragraph of DPT OM dated 9.11.1998, which unequivocally G
states that the directions contained therein are not applicable
to the DOS as in the case of the Department of Atomic Energy
and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (for
short 'DRDO'). It was pointed out that the suggestion of the Vth
Central Pay Commission to make the modified Flexible H
:!"

834 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.G.R

A Complementing Scheme of Promotion for the Group 'A"
Scientists of all. the Departments of the .Central Government
without any special dispensation has not been accepted by the
Government and ~he merit-based promotion .schem.e existing
in these Departments has been allowed to continue, which fact )-

B has been totally overlooked by the High Court.
14. It was also submitted that orders of reservation issued \,
by the Government of India are ipso facto not applicable to the
Department of Space, as the Scientific & Technical posts in ~

Group 'A' and 'B' in the said Department have been exempted '
c from the purview of reservation orders under Office r
Memorandum date.d 28. 7 .1975. But despite the said fact the
.1
,.
appellant Deptt. complied with the orders of reservation passed '
by the Tribunal by including SC and ST Member in the DPC ~

and tried to conduct the DPC for the respondents but still the
D respondents did not consider it appropriate to appear in the ;J..

said interview and availed the opportunity. The counsel also
submitted that the DPC procedures are being followed in the
Department for more than three decades which were formulated
on the basis of a Presidential Notification dated 18.07.1972
E conferring special powers and privileges on the Department
including the powers for formulating all matters relating to
personnel policy including the norms for recruitment and
promotion of its personnel. The counsel also submitted that the
High Court acted without jurisdiction in issuing the directions
F as contained in the impugned order passed.
15. The counsel appearing for the respondents, however,
refuted the aforesaid submissions and contended that both the
orders of the High Court as also the order passed by the Tribunal
are legal and valid, and therefore, the directions issued in the
G said orders are required to be strictly complied with by the
appellants. It was also submitted that the Office Memorandum
dated 09.11.1998 clearly provides that the recommendation of
~ ....
Fifth Pay Commission for application of modified Flexible
Complementing Scheme proposed by it in all the departments,
H including the Department of Space, Atomic Energy and DRDO
-r UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 835
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

without any special dispensation for any special department, A
had not been accepted and thus the existing scheme of merit
based promotion system covering the Group 'A', 'B' and 'C'
personnel, as presently applicable in the Department of Atomic
Energy would also continue to apply to the Department of Space
and the DRDO also. It was also submitted that the contentions 8
of the appellants that they are not bound to follow the procedure
laid down in modified Flexible Complementing Scheme is
unjustified and untenable. It was also submitted that the DPC
has not recorded its findings in detail while DPC is required to
record in detail its finding including the objective assessment
of the merit of the candidate on each factor considered for such C
assessment and therefore DPC acted in derogation and in
violation of its own circulars and consequently the order passed
by the Tribunal to evolve a proper procedure for eliminating the
elements of bias, prejudice or undue victimization of the
candidates was justified. D
16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel
appearing for the parties, we have scrutinised the records,
particularly, the Office Memorandum dated 9.11.1998. A bare
perusal of the 1st paragraph of the said Memorandum would
make it crystal clear that the directions contained therein are not E
applicable to the department of Space as in the case of
Department of Space and Atomic Energy and DRDO. It was
clearly stated in the said Memorandum that the recommendation
of the Fifth Pay Commission to make modified Flexible
Complementing Scheme of promotion for Group 'A' Scientists F
for all the Departments of the Central Government without any
special dispensation for any individual department, has not been
accepted by the Government and the merit based promotion
existing in these Departments has been allowed to continue.
The said stipulation in the office memorandum appears to have
been overlooked by the Tribunal and the High Court while issuing G
the directions as contained in their orders impugned herein.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also
brought to our notice a statement showing Review of the cases
of the respondents by the Department Promotion Committee. H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A A perusal of the same would indicate that both the respondents
1 and 2 have absented themselves in almost all the selection
process.es before the Departmental Selection Committee. We
would like to extract the aforesaid statement, which is as under:
"DETAIL OF REVIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS:
s.
1. Respondent No. 1 (Shri B. Annathurai) - for promotion
to the post of Scientist/En.gineer 'SB'/'SC'
SI. No. DPC Review Date of Result
as on Interview
c 01. 01.04.1999 20.04.1999 Attended (but
recommended as
'Deferred')
02. 01.10.1999 05.11.1999 Absent
D 03. 01.04.2000 30.03.2000 Absent
04. 01.04.2001 26.02.2001 Absent
05. 01.04.1999* 04.10.2001 Absent
06. 01.04.1999* 13.11.2001
E (re-scheduled) Absent
07. 01.04.2002 19.03.2002 Absent
08. . 01.04.-1999* 21.11,2002 Attended (but
recommended as
'Status-Quo' as he
F declined to answer
technical questions)
9. 01.04.2003 26.03.2003 Absent
10. 01.04.1999* 13.10.2003 Attended
G (but recommended
as 'Deferred')
11. 01.04.2004 22.03.2004 Absent
..
12. 01.04.2005 25.02.2005 Absent
13. 01.04.2006 24.04.2006 Absent
H
.
'
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 837
·[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

14. 01.01.2007@ 07.02.2007 Absent A
15. 01.01.2008@ 07.12.2007 Absent
16. 01.01.2009@ 28.11.2008 Absent
@ Review for promotion to the post of Sci./Engr. 'SC'
consequent oh revision of norms. B
2. Respondent No. 2 (Shri E. Chandiran Gandhiji) - for ·
promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'SD'
- SI. No. DPC Review Interview Result
as on Date of c
01. 01.01.2000 23.12.1999 Attended (but
recommended as
"Status Quo")
02. 01.01.2001 19.12.2000 Absent
D
03. 01.01.2000* 03.10.2001 Absent
04. 01.01.2000* 13.11.2001
(re-scheduled) Absent
05. 01.01.2002 -- 28.12.2001 Absent
06. 01.01.2000* 20.11.2002 Attended
(but recommended
as 'Status-Quo' as
he declined to
answer questions)
F
07. 01.01.2003 23.12.2002 Absent
08. 01.01.2000* 09.10.2003 Attended (but
recommended as -·.
'Status-Quo')
;

09. 01.01.2004 19.12.2003 Absent G
10. 01.01.200q 28.12.2004 Absent
11. 01.01.2006 23.12.2005 Promoted to the
post of Scientist/
Engineer 'SD'
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. ~:

A *As directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal ~~
The above statements clearly indicate that although several
opportunities have been granted to the respondents but they
chose not to appear in the interviews held for the purpose of
considering their cases for promotion whereas now they have
B been arguing for their promotion with retrospective effect. It is
necessary to mention at this stage that respondent no. 2 Sh. E.
Chandfran Gandhiji appeared in the DPC held on 01.01.2006.
· He also appeared in the interview held on 23.12.2005 and he ~
was found suitable for promotion in the said selection and
c accordingly an order of promotion was passed in his case,
promoting him to the post of 'Scientist/Engineer 'SD" in the year
2006, which he has accepted without any protest. If the
appellants despite being given opportunity to appear in the
selection choose not to appear in the selection and stayed away
D from it they cannot seek for direction from the court for their
promotion without appearing in the interview from a
. retrospective date. The reason for such non-appearance in the
interview when called for selection and also for not answering
questions in the selection when they appeared has not been
E given by the respondents. In any case such action on their part
was at the peril of their own service career and also definitely
detrimental to their interest. Having taken such a vital unilateral
decision they now cannot seek to take advantage of their own ,._ "
wrong.
F 18. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to notice
that the Department has been following an elaborate procedure
for assessing the suitability or otherwise of the candidates for
promotion and the said procedure is based on the guidelines
issued by the Government, which procedure is being followed
G for a very long period of time, and therefore, the order and the
direction issued by the Tribunal which has been upheld by the ,. .._
High Court to evolve a new procedure for the recommendations
of the DPC was unwarranted and uncalled for.
19. On close scrutiny of the procedure, which is a part of
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. 839
, [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.J
~ the Government Notifications dated 30.09.1976 and A
22.02.1988, it is clear that the Department has a detailed
procedure for assessing the suitability of the candidates for
promotion. As per such procedure overall assessment of the
candidates has to be taken into consideration i.e. keenness
exhibited by the official in the pursuit of his profession, ability to B
take up higher responsibilities, managerial/leadership qualities,
theoretical knowledge, etc. and more specifically achievements
j of the candidates being reviewed and consequently such a
procedure cannot be termed as either arbitrary or unreasonable .
....(
In the matter of promotion to the job of Scientists/Engineers c
working in area like Space, there is no possibility for
compromising in the matter of merit and therefore merit is prime
consideration which is given emphasis.
20. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the
"' case, we are of the considered opinion that the findings and
conclusions recorded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High
D

Court cannot be sustained and are therefore by this Judgment
we set aside and quash the same.
21. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed.
E
D.G. Appeals allowed.

-.\

-