Union of India & Ors. vs Gopal Meena & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

10 August 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hemant Gupta, Vikram Nath

Citation

[2022] 17 S.C.R. 1106 : 2022 INSC 808

Headnote

Service Law – Promotion – Special drive for filling up backlog vacancies vis-à-vis regular promotion – Distinction between ad hoc promotions and regular promotions – Held: Distinction between a special drive for filling up backlog vacancies and regular promotion to candidates both from the reserved and the unreserved categories, is too obvious – While filling up vacancies by way of promotion on regular basis, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is constituted and the profile of the candidates coming within the zone of consideration is prepared – But in a special drive for filling up the backlog vacancies meant for reserved category candidates, such an exercise become redundant – This is because all candidates who will be considered for promotion, in a special drive, will invariably belong to the same reserved category, as otherwise it will cease to be a special drive – Similarly, the exercise undertaken for filling up vacancies on ad hoc basis, stands on a different footing from the exercise undertaken for the grant of regular promotions – In the present case, there is no parity between backlog vacancies covered in Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2004 and the regular promotion covered in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 and/or 6.1.2006 – Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have completely missed the issue involved in the subsequent applications filed by the candidates – Tribunal and the High Court missed the distinction between ad hoc promotions and the regular promotions to be made through DPC – High Court as well as the Tribunal fell into error on two aspects- they did not address the issue whether there was a special recruitment drive for filling up of backlog vacancies and whether there was a failure to consider the case of the respondents; and they applied the yardstick meant for ad hoc promotions to the case of regular promotions, though the case of the candidates was for unfilled backlog vacancies – This fundamental error of focus resulted in the Tribunal and the High Court answering a question that did not arise – Orders of the High Courts are erroneous and not sustainable in law – Consequently, the orders passed for regular promotion by extending the zone of consideration do not arise, set aside.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present three appeals have been preferred by the Union of India; two appeals viz. Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2010 arise out of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1, affirmed by the High Court of Delhi and High Court of Punjab & Haryana, directing separate zone of consideration for promotion of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates to the post of Superintendent in the Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate from the post of Inspector, whereas the Civil Appeal No. 9436

View Subscription Plans →