2000 JTR(SC) 1215
2000 4 AWC 2991 ; 2000 9 JT 464 ; 2001 9 SCC 398 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 93 ; 2000 4 SCT 957 ; 2000 5 SLR 76 ; 2000 7 SLR 11 ; 2000 7 SLT 11 ; 2000 3 UPLBEC 2224 ; 2001 KHC 3973 ; 2001 4 Supreme 276
2001(4) Supreme 276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. Jagannadha Rao & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Brij Nath Pandey -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
SLP (Civil) No. 15449 of 1999
Decided on 31-7-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports of past years could not be taken into consideration for promotion when such public servant was allowed to cross efficiency bar in the subsequent years.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of service, including promotions and efficiency assessments, and the relevant statutory provisions apply to the determination of eligibility and reconsideration in matters of departmental proceedings. The case falls under the purview of rules concerning adverse entries, efficiency bar clearance, and the doctrine of reconsideration in administrative orders affecting service privileges.
(B) Key legal principles include that past adverse entries cannot bar promotion once the officer is permitted to cross the efficiency bar, subsequent deletion of adverse remarks warrants fresh consideration, and the dispute is solely between the individual and the State without the necessity to implead other affected parties.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was denied promotion in 1995 despite his junior being promoted. Adverse entries existed in Annual Confidential Reports for 1985-86 and 1986-87, but the appellant had crossed the efficiency bar on or after 1-1-92 per an order dated 20-5-92. Additionally, adverse remarks from 1993-94 were recorded but later deleted on 6.7.96.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellant is entitled to fresh consideration for promotion in 1995 since the efficiency bar was crossed and adverse remarks were subsequently expunged, and the respondents must reconsider his case without being influenced by earlier adverse entries.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to reconsideration for promotion despite earlier adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports.
Ratio Decidendi:
Once an officer is allowed to cross the efficiency barrier, previous adverse entries cannot prejudice further promotion, and deletion of adverse remarks mandates fresh evaluation.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, and the respondents are directed to reconsider the appellants case afresh with reference to the 1995 selection within three months, with no order as to costs.
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of service, including promotions and efficiency assessments, and the relevant statutory provisions apply to the determination of eligibility and reconsideration in matters of departmental proceedings. The case falls under the purview of rules concerning adverse entries, efficiency bar clearance, and the doctrine of reconsideration in administrative orders affecting service privileges.
(B) Key legal principles include that past adverse entries cannot bar promotion once the officer is permitted to cross the efficiency bar, subsequent deletion of adverse remarks warrants fresh consideration, and the dispute is solely between the individual and the State without the necessity to implead other affected parties.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was denied promotion in 1995 despite his junior being promoted. Adverse entries existed in Annual Confidential Reports for 1985-86 and 1986-87, but the appellant had crossed the efficiency bar on or after 1-1-92 per an order dated 20-5-92. Additionally, adverse remarks from 1993-94 were recorded but later deleted on 6.7.96.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellant is entitled to fresh consideration for promotion in 1995 since the efficiency bar was crossed and adverse remarks were subsequently expunged, and the respondents must reconsider his case without being influenced by earlier adverse entries.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to reconsideration for promotion despite earlier adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports.
Ratio Decidendi:
Once an officer is allowed to cross the efficiency barrier, previous adverse entries cannot prejudice further promotion, and deletion of adverse remarks mandates fresh evaluation.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, and the respondents are directed to reconsider the appellants case afresh with reference to the 1995 selection within three months, with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard Counsel on both sides. The appellant was denied promotion in the selection which took place in 1995 when, according to him, his junior was promoted. According to the appellant the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports 1985-86 and 1986-87 could not have been taken into consideration in view of the fact that the appellant was subsequently allowed to cross the efficiency bar since 1-1-92 vide an order dated 20-5-92. In our view this contention of the appellant is correct and the adverse entries in 1985-86 and 1986-87 cannot come in the way of the appellant for further promotion once he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 20-5-92. So far as the adverse remarks of 1993-94 are concerned at the time of the selection in 1995 the said adverse remarks were there on record but they were subsequently deleted on 6.7.96. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a fresh consideration for his promotion in 1995. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the case of the appellant afresh with reference to the selection of 1995 when his junior was promoted.
3. A point was raised by the respondent that the other candidates might be affected with this order and have not been impleaded. We are unable to agree. The appellant is not seeking any direction with reference to the seniority. The dispute is purely between the appellant and the respondent State. If the adverse remarks could not have been taken into consideration, he has made out a case for re-consideration of his case. While doing so it is not necessary to hear other persons who might be affected. The fresh consideration as directed above will be done within a period of three months from today.
4. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Brij Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001(4) Supreme 276 : 2000 (9) JT 464 : 2000 (5) SLR 76
00021