Cabinet panel must tell reasons for not promoting officer: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), which decides postings of senior civil servants, was bound to disclose reasons for not approving the name of a candidate for promotion or selection.
A bench of Justices H.S. Bedi and J.M. Panchal said notwithstanding the fact that the ACC alone is the appointing authority and has the right to differ with recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), yet it must give reasons so that it is not accused of "arbitrariness".
Citing an earlier ruling by the Apex court, the bench dismissed the appeal of the Centre challenging a Delhi High Court direction to appoint Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar as Director Marketing in the State Trading Corporation.
Majumdar's name was recommended by all authorities and two members of the ACC including the Union home minister in March 2006, but in the final assessment the ACC had not accepted the recommendation.
He submitted that it was incumbent on the ACC to offer reasons for not accepting the recommendations and said though the grounds were not required to be communicated to the officer concerned, it was nonetheless open to the court to examine the record to see if any reason had been cited.
Majumdar claimed that his chances for promotion were scuttled by the then Cabinet Secretary who had personal animosity towards him.
Though a single judge of the High Court had ruled that the ACC had absolute authority on the appointment or denial of promotion or posting, a division bench overturned the ruling and held that the ACC was under obligation to disclose the reasons for not considering a candidate's case.
Dismissing the Centre's appeal, the Apex court said the division bench had rightly noted that after various enquiries and investigations, Majumdar had been exonerated on merits and had subsequently obtained two promotions, first as General Manager and thereafter as Chief General Manager of the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB).
"The entry with regard to his doubtful integrity which had been made on account of the pending matters had also been removed.
"The Division Bench had also called for the confidential record of the respondent and observed that he had been assessed as 'very good' for 2001-02 and 2002-03, 'excellent' for 2003-04 and 'outstanding' for 2004-05 and 2005-06. It goes without saying that these were the crucial years in so far as the respondent's case for promotion to Director (Marketing) was concerned," the Apex court observed.
The bench said though the High Court had asked the Centre to show the reasons for denying the promotions, the authorities were unable to produce any records to support it.
Thus it said an inference has to be drawn that no reasons whatsoever had been recorded.
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed," the court said.
Post new comment