- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vinod Kumar Sangal v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant joined the Geological Survey of India (GSI) as a Drilling Assistant on 12 July 1965 (later redesignated as Junior Technical Assistant). On 12 November 1978 he was promoted to Senior Technical Assistant and posted to Shillong, but he declined the posting and the offer was cancelled on 22 February 1980. In August 1980 he received an ad hoc promotion to Senior Technical Assistant in Nagpur, which he held until 18 February 1985, when he was reverted to Junior Technical Assistant because the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) that met in 1985 did not select him for regular promotion.
The appellant challenged the reversion by filing Writ Petition No. 395 of 1985 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The case was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, and registered as Transfer Petition No. 343 of 1987. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on 8 August 1990, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the failure to convene DPCs annually between 1979 and 1984 rendered the 1985 DPC proceedings—and the appellant’s consequent reversion—invalid.
- Whether the 1985 DPC acted contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 24 December 1980 by “bunching” vacancies from 1980–1985 instead of preparing separate, year-wise selection panels.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- DPCs were not convened annually from 1979 to 1984, contravening the governing rules.
- The 1985 DPC improperly combined vacancies from multiple years, enlarging the field of choice and prejudicing his prospects, contrary to the Office Memorandum of 24 December 1980 which mandates year-wise consideration.
Respondents' Arguments
- GSI was undergoing regionalisation, delaying regular promotions; only ad hoc appointments were made in public interest.
- After reorganisation, the Central Region had six promotable vacancies (plus one direct-recruit post). The appellant’s name headed the list considered by the 1985 DPC, which followed the applicable Recruitment Rules (80 % promotion, 20 % direct recruitment).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the respondents’ explanation that regionalisation justified the absence of DPC meetings between 1979 and 1984. However, it held that once the DPC met in 1985, it was bound by paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 December 1980. That memorandum explicitly requires:
- Identification of the exact number of vacancies arising in each year since the last DPC;
- Year-wise determination of the field of choice and preparation of separate selection lists;
- Consolidation of those lists in chronological order.
Affidavits filed by GSI showed one vacancy in 1980, one in 1982, and three in 1983. Instead of preparing individual panels for these years, the 1985 DPC combined all six promotional vacancies (including those allotted after regionalisation in late 1984) into a single selection exercise. The Court found that this “bunching” enlarged the field of choice and adversely affected the appellant’s chances, thereby violating the mandatory procedure in the Office Memorandum.
Because the six selected officers were not parties to the litigation, the Court declined to disturb their promotions. Nonetheless, it fashioned equitable relief to restore the appellant’s opportunity for year-wise consideration.
Holding and Implications
Appeal DISPOSED OF with directions. The Supreme Court ordered the respondents to convene, within four months, a fresh DPC to consider the appellant’s promotion against the specific vacancies that arose in 1980, 1982, and 1983, following the year-wise procedure mandated by the 24 December 1980 Office Memorandum. If selected, his 18 February 1985 reversion will be revoked and he will receive regular promotion with all consequential benefits from the date the six officers selected in 1985 were promoted. If not selected, the reversion stands. The appellant is awarded costs of ₹5,000.
The ruling grants relief tailored to the appellant without unsettling the promotions of non-party officers. It clarifies that DPCs which miss annual sittings must retrospectively apply the Office Memorandum’s year-wise selection methodology but does not establish a broader precedent beyond enforcing existing executive instructions.
S.C Agrawal, J.— Leave granted.
2. We have heard the appellant who is appearing in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellant joined the Geological Survey of India (for short ‘GSI’) as Drilling Assistant on 12-7-1965. The said post was re-designated as Junior Technical Assistant. As per recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘the DPC’), by order dated 12-11-1978, he was promoted and posted as Senior Technical Assistant in the North-Eastern Region at Shillong. The appellant requested for a posting in the Central Region at Nagpur itself but the said request was not accepted. The said promotion of the appellant was kept open for the appellant to join at Shillong Office till 22-2-1980 on which date the said offer was cancelled by the competent authority. In August 1980 the appellant was granted ad hoc promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant and he was posted in the Central Region at Nagpur. He continued to hold the said post till the order dated 18-2-1985 whereby he was reverted to the post of Junior Technical Assistant with effect from 28-2-1985. The said order of reversion was passed on account of the appellant having not been selected for promotion on regular basis to the post of Senior Technical Assistant by the DPC which met in 1985. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of reversion the appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 395 of 1985) in the High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The said writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) and it was registered as Transfer Petition No. 343 of 1987. Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that according to the Rules the DPC should meet every year but in the present case the DPC did not meet during the period from 1979 to 1984 and, therefore, proceedings of the DPC which met in 1985 were liable to be quashed. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said contention and dismissed the said petition by judgment, dated 8-8-1990. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. The appellant has placed reliance on the office memorandum dated 24-12-1980 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) on the subject “Principles for promotion to ‘Selection’ posts” wherein it is stated that in a number of cases the meetings of the DPC are not held annually as required even though there were vacancies resulting in the bunching of vacancies which in turn enlarged the field of choice and upset the relative seniority positions in the higher grade on account of supersessions and after considering the various points which were raised by various Ministries/Departments the following instructions were issued:
“3. Zone of consideration for promotion to posts filled by Selection.— Reference is invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs (New Department of Personnel and A.R) OM No. 1/4-55/-RPS dated 13-5-1967 laying down certain principles for promotion. In the operation of these principles it has been observed that the absence of clearly defined limits on the context of the field of choice has led to lack of uniformity in the practices being followed by the DPCs. Similarly, it is felt that a large field of choice might result in excessive supersessions. Again, despite repeated instructions of the Government to hold DPCs annually there have been quite a few cases of delays resulting in vacancies being bunched. This would enlarge the field of choice and upset the relative seniority positions in the higher post with reference to the positions which would not have resulted had the DPCs met at the appropriate time. In view of these considerations it has been decided in consultation with the UPSC as under in supersession of this Department's OM No. 1/4/55-RPS dated 16-5-1957 and all other documents having any bearing on the matter herein dealt with.
(a) The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for the purpose of determining the number of officers who should be considered from out of these eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) restrict the field of choice as under, with reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the year.
No. of Vacancies No. of Officers to be considered (1) (2) 1 5 2 8 3 10 4 or more Three times the number of vacancies
(b) Where, however, the number of eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) is less than the number in Col. (2) above, all the officers so eligible should be considered.
(c) Where adequate number of SC/ST candidates are not available within the normal field of choice as above, the field of choice may be extended to 5 times the number.
4. Preparation of year-wise panels by DPC where they have not met for a number of years.— Instructions already exist that DPCs should meet at regular annual intervals for the preparation of select list and where no such meeting is held in any year, the appointing authority should record a certificate that there were no vacancies to be filled during the year. Administrative Ministries should obtain periodical information/certificates on the regular holding of DPCs.
(b) Where, however, for reasons beyond control, DPC could not be held in any year(s) even though the vacancies arise during that year (or years), the first DPC that meets thereafter should follow the following procedure:
(i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year/years immediately and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately.
(ii) Consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards.
(iii) Prepare a ‘Selection List’ for each of the years starting with the earliest year onwards.
(iv) Prepare a consolidated ‘Select List’ by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on.”
5. The submission of the appellant is that apart from the fact that no DPC was held during the years 1979 to 1984, the DPC which met in 1985 did not make the selection according to the vacancies which occurred in each year during the period 1979 to 1985 and it bunched together all the vacancies that occurred during the years 1979 to 1985 and made the selection for all those vacancies which resulted in enlarging the field of choice and thereby prejudicially affecting the chances of selection of the appellant.
6. On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that GSI actively considered the regionalisation of the Department in view of the all-India character of the Department and that the question of allocation of posts of different categories to the different appointing authorities under each region was under process and hence no promotion could be proposed or effected but, as a matter of nature of work and in public interest, ad hoc appointments were made in various cadres according to the requirement as per local seniority and accordingly the appellant was also given ad hoc promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) in August 1980 and that such ad hoc appointments were cancelled in 1985 when the Department could arrive at actual regular vacancies in the Department after reorganisation and regular selection was made by the DPC for the vacancies. In the counter-affidavit of Anil Joshi filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that out of 86 posts of Senior Technical Assistant which were available in the Central Region of GSI, 6 posts occurred in the Central Region Office as per letter dated 22-12-1984 of the Head Office of GSI and that out of those 6 posts one post was reserved for SC/ST candidate and as per the Recruitment Rules in force the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) is to be filled in the ratio of 20% by direct recruitment and 80% by promotion from the grade of Junior Technical Assistant (Drilling) with 5 years' regular service in the grade and that the name of the appellant at Serial No. 1 along with other candidates was placed before the DPC which was constituted by letter dated 8-1-1985.
7. In view of the aforesaid explanation that has been offered by the respondents for non-holding of the DPC during the period the reorganisation of the Department was under process may be justified. But when the DPC met in 1985 was it not required to make the selections on yearly basis for the vacancies of each particular year? The office memorandum dated 24-12-1980 clearly postulates that where the DPC is unable to meet at regular intervals for reasons beyond control, the first DPC that meets thereafter shall determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year/years and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately and consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards and prepare a selection list for each of the years starting with the earliest year onwards and on that basis prepare a consolidated select list. From the affidavit of A.K Bhandari, Director, GSI dated 23-3-1995, filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that one regular vacancy occurred in the year 1980 which was filled by ad hoc appointment of the appellant and the next single vacancy occurred in 1982 which was also filled up on ad hoc basis and that three vacancies occurred in the year 1983 which were also filled up on ad hoc basis. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that on 22-12-1984 the Central Region got allotment of seven vacancies of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) — 6 promotion and one direct recruit — on account of regionalisation of Group ‘C’ cadre and that for making selection for 6 posts to be filled by promotion the DPC met on 15-1-1985 and made selection for all 6 promotional vacancies.
8. It is not the case of the respondents that the DPC made separate selection for the vacancies for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and the DPC appears to have bunched together all the vacancies for the years 1980 to 1985 and has made one selection for the 6 promotional vacancies and this has resulted in enlargement of the field of choice for the purpose of selection. The grievance of the appellant is that this mode of selection in disregard of the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated 24-12-1980 operated to his prejudice appears to be justified because if separate selection had been made for the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 the field of choice would have been much more restricted and the appellant would have had better chances of being selected.
9. The 6 persons who were selected by the DPC in 1985 for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) are not parties in these proceedings. Their selection cannot, therefore, be disturbed. Therefore, without disturbing the selection of the 6 officers who were selected by the DPC in 1985 for the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling), the respondents are directed to convene a DPC for considering the appellant for selection for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) against the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. The said DPC shall consider the appellant for such selection for the vacancies for each of these years separately as per the office memorandum dated 24-12-1980. In case the appellant is selected for such promotion against any of these vacancies, the reversion of the appellant made by order dated 18-2-1985 would stand revoked and he would be regularly promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling) with all consequential benefits with effect from the date when 6 persons who were selected by the DPC in 1985 were so promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Drilling). In case the appellant is not selected by the DPC for any of the vacancies, his reversion under order dated 18-2-1985 would remain undisturbed. The DPC should be convened within a period of four months.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant would be entitled to his costs. The said costs are fixed at Rs 5000.
Alert