Union of India v. Smt. Sadhana Khanna

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-12-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India

Respondents

Smt. Sadhana Khanna

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. S. Doabia
• Kiran Bhardwaj
• Sushma Suri
• Manpreet Singh Doabia

Counsels for Respondents

• Rachna Gupta
• Dr. Indra Pratap Singh
• Amrit Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

Union of India v. Smt. Sadhana Khanna concerns a challenge to the select list for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Grade G) for the year 1991 in the Central Secretariat Service. The respondent, a senior employee who had eight years of regular service, was not included in the 1991 select list though she was qualified, while several officers junior to her who had lower ranking in the Assistants Grade Examination of 1981 were included and promoted. The matter was pursued through the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the OA; the Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The core issue is whether the senior applicant should be considered for promotion when juniors who meet eligibility have been promoted; the Department of Personnel and Training had issued memoranda (18.3.1988 and 19.7.1989) clarifying that once juniors meet eligibility, their seniors must also be considered, to avoid an incongruous situation where seniors are left out. The Court noted that the respondent was offered an appointment letter dated 5.7.1983, after the eligibility date of 1.7.1983, and that some juniors were appointed before that date. The Supreme Court concluded there is no merit in the appeal, holding that the Department was at fault and that the respondent should be considered for promotion; hence the appeal was dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the select list for 1991 was prepared strictly on the basis of the seniority quota for the grade of Assistant to Section Officer (non‑selection based). The respondent did not meet the minimum eligibility service requirement on 1 July 1983; inclusion of juniors with lower marks and the extension of eligibility through departmental memoranda cannot override the eight‑year rule. The letters offering appointment after 1 July 1983 indicate administrative fault, but do not alter the statutory requirement. Reliance on Prabha Devi and the DoPT memoranda should not compel automatic inclusion of the senior where the eligibility condition has not been met. The Tribunal’s approach should not be construed as mandating promotion contrary to the fixed eligibility period.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that where juniors satisfy the eligibility criteria, their seniors must also be considered to avoid injustice. Relying on the decision in R. Prabha Devi and Ors. v. Government of India (1988) 2 SCC 233 and DoPT memoranda, the senior’s name should be included in the select list if the junior has completed the eligibility period; the department’s failure to adhere to the clear intent of the memos and ensure fairness in the promotion process warrants consideration of the senior for promotion.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
R. Prabha Devi & Ors. v. Government of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors.	[1988] 2 SCC 233	Positive	The Court referenced this decision to support the principle that when juniors meet eligibility, their seniors should likewise be considered for promotion, a stance later reinforced by DoPT memos.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ~ • B c D ## UNION OF INDIA ## _v._ ## SMT. SADHANA KHANNA ## DECEMBER 14, 2007 ## [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) _Service Law-Promotion-Select List for promotion-Non inclusion of senior candidates' name though qualified whereas names ofiunior candidates included-Challenge to-Held: Senior candidate was issued appointment letter after the eligibility date for promotion whereas junior candidates tt·ere issued prior to eligibility date-Hence, Department was at fault-Senior candidates_ ' _name to be considered for promotion._ Aggrieved respondent filed application challenging the Select List for promotion to the post of Section Officer for year 1991, since her name was not included in the Select List though she was qualified and the name of the officers junior to the respondent was included E[in ][the ][select list ][and ][were promoted to ][the ][post ][of ][Section Officer. ] The Tribunal allowed the application. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. ; Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The respondent was offered appointment by letter F dated 5. 7.1983 which was after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1.7.1983. Hence, it was the Department which was to be blamed for G[sending the letter offering appointment ][after ][1.7.1983. Moreover, ] in view of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Trainingdated 18.3.1988and19.7.1989 the respondent was also to be considered, othenvise a very incongruous situation would arise namely that the junior would be considered for promotion but the senior would not. (Para 11] [744-G-H; 745-A-BJ H 742 ~ ... UNIONOFINDIAv. SMT. SADHANAKHANNA [MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 743 -1 _R. Prabha Devi & Ors._ v. _Government of India Through Secretary,_ A _Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors.,_ (1988] 2 sec 233, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8208 of 2001. B From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 1311 of2000. T.S. Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj, Sushma Suri and Manpreet Singh Doabia for the Appellant. c Rachna Gupta, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh and Amrit Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against D the impugned judgn1ent of the Delhi High Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No.1311 of2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central Secretariat Service on 13. 7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade Examination held in October, 1981. The respondent was allocated to the finance cadre comprising the Ministry of Finance. E 4. After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of F Assistant, the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of Section Officer on 24.7.1991. The respondent continues to work in this post till date. 5. Select List (Seninrity quota) for promotion to the Section Officers G Grade for the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993. The respondent's name has not been included in this select list although the respondent was qualified to be included in the select list. Officers junior to the respondent who have secured lower rank in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981 have been included in the select list for Section Officers 1991. H ## 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ## [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A 6. The seniority list of Assistants Grade had been issued on 1st October, 1990. In this list the respondent ranks at S.N.29 whereas other officers of the same grade at S.Nos.30, 32, 34, 25 and so on who are junior to the respondent in this seniority list have superseded the respondent and promqted as Section Officer on the basis of the Sele~t B List of 1991. Promotion to the post of section officers from the grade of Assistant to the grade of Section Officers (seniority quota) is on nonselection basis, based only on seniority. 7. The grievance of the respondent was that her juniors were included C in the select list but her name was not so included. Hence, she filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 8. Jn the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein (respondent before the Tribunal) alleged that the respondent was not eligible for inclusion in the Select List of 1991, since on 1. 7 .1991 she D was short of the minimum eligibility service requirement of eight years by twelve days. The respondent joined as Assistant on 13.7.1983 and as such she could not be placed on the select list. 9. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. by its order dated 24.9.1999. In E the said O.A. it was hold that the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1989 soon after the decision of this Court in _R. Prabha Devi and Ors._ v. _Government of JndiaThrough Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Ors.,_ [1988] 2 SCC 233 stating that where F the junior had completed the eligibility requirement of promotion then their seniors will also be considered even if they have not completed the eligibility period. G 10. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed and hence this appeal. 11. It may be noted that the respondent was offered appointment vide letter dated 5.7.1983 which is after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. Hence, it is the Department which is to blame for sending the letter offering appointment after 1. 7 .1983. In fact, some of H the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1.7.1983. Hence it was the Department 745 UNION OF INDIA _v._ SMT. SAD HANA KHANNA [MARKANDEYKA TJU, J.] which is to blame for this. Moreover, in view of the Office Memorandum A of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 18.3.1988 and 19. 7.1989 the respondent was also to be considered, otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise namely that the junior will be considered for promotion but the senior will not. 12. In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and it is B dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed. _I_