1981 JTR(SC) 100
1981 AIR(SC) 1655 ; 1981 43 FLR 296 ; 1981 LIC 1116 ; 1981 2 LLN 497 ; 1981 2 SCC 674 ; 1981 SCC(L&S) 438 ; 1981 3 SLR 110 ; 1982 1 SLR 650 ; 1981 KHC 855
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.
Lakhi Ram, Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1980, D/- 18-2-1981.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Civil Appeal – Annual confidential Report – Adverse Remark - Appellant has been dismissed by High Court is that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain writ petition - Appellant filed writ petition challenging action of Government expunging adverse remarks made in annual confidential report of respondent No. 6 - High Court took view that appellant was not entitled to complain against expungement of adverse remarks made in confidential report of another officer - Held, Appellant was clearly entitled to show that Government acted beyond scope of its power in expunging adverse remarks in confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that expungment of adverse remarks should be cancelled - Appellant had, in the circumstances - locus standi to maintain writ petition and High Court was in error in rejecting it on ground, that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the writ petition - Appeal allowed.
Civil Appeal – Annual confidential Report – Adverse Remark - Appellant has been dismissed by High Court is that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain writ petition - Appellant filed writ petition challenging action of Government expunging adverse remarks made in annual confidential report of respondent No. 6 - High Court took view that appellant was not entitled to complain against expungement of adverse remarks made in confidential report of another officer - Held, Appellant was clearly entitled to show that Government acted beyond scope of its power in expunging adverse remarks in confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that expungment of adverse remarks should be cancelled - Appellant had, in the circumstances - locus standi to maintain writ petition and High Court was in error in rejecting it on ground, that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the writ petition - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J:- The only ground on which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court is that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Government expunging the adverse remarks made in the annual confidential report of respondent No. 6. The High Court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks made in the confidential report of another officer. But this view is, in our opinion, erroneous because the effect of expungement of adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 is to prejudice the chances of promotion of the appellant and if the appellant is able to show that the expungement of the remaks was illegal and invalid, the adverse remarks would continue to remain in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that would improve the chances of promotion of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No. 6. The appellant was, therefore, clearly entitled to show that the Government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that the expungment of the adverse remarks should be cancelled. The appellant had, in the circumstances. locus standi to maintain the writ petition and the High Court was in error in rejecting it on the ground, that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the writ petition.
2. This was the reason why we allowed the appeal and setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the High Court, remanded the writ petition to the High Court for disposal on merits.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1655