{"id":46220,"date":"2009-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-22T08:05:31","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T02:35:31","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1128-1129          OF 2009\n           (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17728-17729 of 2007)\n\n\n\n\nUnion of India & Ors.                              .....Appellants\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\n\nB. Annathurai & Anr.                             .....Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
24.4.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at<\/p>\n
Madras by which the High Court upheld the common order dated 11.8.2005<\/p>\n
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter<\/p>\n
                               Page 1 of 17<\/span>
\nreferred to as the `Tribunal’) and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant- Union of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       By the aforesaid order the Tribunal quashed the minutes of the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 13.10.2003 in respect of<\/p>\n
both the respondents herein and directed the appellants herein to evolve a<\/p>\n
proper format for recording minutes of DPC and to review the case of the<\/p>\n
two respondents, namely, Shri B. Annathurai and Shri E. Chandiran<\/p>\n
Gandhiji respectively for promotion to the post of Scientist\/Engineer `SB’<\/p>\n
and Scientist\/Engineer `SD’ with effect from 01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000<\/p>\n
respectively.    Review applications filed by the appellants were also<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Tribunal through a common order dated 26.10.2005 as<\/p>\n
being in the nature of an appeal. The writ petitions filed by the Union of<\/p>\n
India and others against the aforesaid findings were dismissed by the High<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.       A time bound merit based and non-vacancy oriented scheme of<\/p>\n
promotion called Flexible Complementary Scheme (for short FCS) has been<\/p>\n
in existence in Indian Space Research Organisation (for short `ISRO’)\/<\/p>\n
Department of Space (for short `DOS’) for promotion of its Scientific and<\/p>\n
Technical personnel in all the four groups (A, B, C & D) right from the year<\/p>\n
                                Page 2 of 17<\/span>
\n1976.    Emphasis was on merit and not on seniority unlike in other<\/p>\n
Ministries\/Departments of Government of India. The Department of Space<\/p>\n
was vested with powers to formulate its own policies including norms for<\/p>\n
recruitment and promotion of its personnel and to this extent, the DPT<\/p>\n
orders were not applicable to ISRO\/Department of Space. In 1972, ISRO<\/p>\n
was brought under DOS by the Govt. of India<\/p>\n
5.      The Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (for short `LPSC’), the<\/p>\n
appellant Organization is one of the five major Centres of ISRO under DOS,<\/p>\n
Government of India. The Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government<\/p>\n
of India issued OM No. 2\/41\/97-PIC, dated 9.11.1998 as a continuation of<\/p>\n
O.M. No. A.42014\/2\/86-Admn 1(A), dated 28.5.1986 introducing Flexible<\/p>\n
Complementing Scheme of promotion in other Scientific and Technological<\/p>\n
Departments which was not applicable to ISRO\/DOS. Relevant portion of<\/p>\n
the said OM is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
             “…….1. The recommendation of the Pay Commission that the
\n             modified Flexible Complementing Scheme proposed by it
\n             should be applicable in all the Departments, including the
\n             Departments of Space, Atomic Energy and DRDO without any
\n             special dispensation for any individual department, has not
\n             been accepted. The existing scheme of merit based promotion
\n             system covering the Group `A’, `B’, `C’ Personnel, as presently
\n             applicable in the Department of Atomic Energy, the
\n             Department of Space and the DRDO shall continue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                Page 3 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
            2. The recommendation of the Pay Commission to define
\n            “Scientific Administrators” and to exclude them from the
\n            benefit of in situ promotions under Flexible Complementing
\n            Scheme and to bring them under the ambit of “Assured Career
\n            Progression Scheme” formulated by the Pay Commission has
\n            not been accepted. However, it has been decided that the
\n            Flexible Complementing Scheme should, as per its original
\n            objective, be made applicable only to scientists and
\n            technologists holding scientific posts in Scientific and
\n            Technology Departments and who were engaged in scientific
\n            activities and services…………”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    The respondent no. 1 herein namely B. Annathurai was working as<\/p>\n
Technical Assistant `C’ in the grade of Rs. 5500-175-9000 whereas<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2, namely Shri E. Chandiran Gandhiji was working as<\/p>\n
Scientist\/Engineer `SC’. Both were working in the appellants Organization<\/p>\n
i.e. Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    Respondent No. 1 was considered by the DPC for promotion to the<\/p>\n
post of Scientist\/Engineer `SB’ in the review held on 20.4.1999 along with<\/p>\n
18 other candidates. Cases of five candidates including the respondent No.<\/p>\n
1 were deferred by DPC to be reassessed after one year as per prevalent<\/p>\n
norms. In view of certain special order issued by the Department, the<\/p>\n
respondent No. 1 became eligible for consideration once again along with<\/p>\n
                                Page 4 of 17<\/span>
\nothers even before completion of one year period. But respondent no. 1 did<\/p>\n
not appear for the interview, although he was called for the same.<\/p>\n
8.    Respondent no. 2 was interviewed along with 19 other candidates.<\/p>\n
Cases of six candidates including the respondent no. 2 were deferred by the<\/p>\n
DPC. Respondent no. 2 was called for interview again after one year on<\/p>\n
19.12.2000 but he did not appear. Respondent no. 1 was again called for<\/p>\n
interview on 30.2.2000 but again he did not appear.<\/p>\n
9.    Both the respondents filed separate O.A. before the Central<\/p>\n
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, (for short `Tribunal’) praying for<\/p>\n
setting aside the DPC proceedings held on 20.4.1999 and 23.12.1999<\/p>\n
respectively. They stated that the appellants are unhappy with them for<\/p>\n
repeatedly approaching the Tribunal with regard to promotion.        By a<\/p>\n
common order dated 4.7.2001 the learned Tribunal directed to reconstitute<\/p>\n
the DPC by including a member of SC\/ST community as prayed for by<\/p>\n
respondents.    In compliance with the said direction the appellant<\/p>\n
organization reconstituted the DPC and called both the respondents for<\/p>\n
interview but they did not attend. They were given further opportunities<\/p>\n
even subsequent thereafter on 1.4.1999 and 1.1.2000 respectively.<\/p>\n
                                 Page 5 of 17<\/span>
\nAlthough they appeared before the Selection Committee but they refused to<\/p>\n
answer any of the questions put to them by the DPC members. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the respondents were not recommended for promotion.<\/p>\n
10.   Respondents were given further opportunities to appear in subsequent<\/p>\n
selections held for the purpose but they did not appear. They did not appear<\/p>\n
in the interview which was conducted as per Tribunal’s order dated<\/p>\n
28.8.2003 as such they were not recommended for promotion by the duly<\/p>\n
reconstituted DPC. The respondents filed O.As. before Tribunal which<\/p>\n
were disposed off by the Tribunal by a common order dated 11.08.2005<\/p>\n
directing the appellants to evolve a proper format for recording the minutes<\/p>\n
of the DPC taking into account the various requirements and then to hold a<\/p>\n
Review DPC retrospectively i.e. as on 01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000<\/p>\n
respectively.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   Being aggrieved the appellants herein filed writ petitions before the<\/p>\n
High Court of Madras. The High Court found no merit in the writ petitions<\/p>\n
and dismissed the same. It did not find any illegality or perversity in the<\/p>\n
findings of the Ld. Tribunal and directed the writ appellants to implement<\/p>\n
the directions of the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date<\/p>\n
                                Page 6 of 17<\/span>
\nof receipt of a copy of the order of the High Court. Hence the appellants<\/p>\n
filed the Special Leave Petitions on which leave stand granted.<\/p>\n
12.   The High Court in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “10. The procedure for conducting DPC was issued by the
\n            Government of India in G.I. Min. of per. & Trg. OM No.
\n            2\/41\/97-PIC, dated 9.11.1998 as a continuation of O.M. No.
\n            A.42014\/2\/86-Admn 1(A), dated 28.5.1986. The allegation of
\n            the applicants is that the authorities have disobeyed the said
\n            instructions issued by the Government of India. As could be
\n            seen from the affidavit filed in support of these two writ
\n            petitions, the contention of the appellants is that there is no
\n            apportionment of marks for interview and ACRs in the scheme
\n            of promotion followed for Scientific Assistants, Technical
\n            Assistants and Scientists\/Engineers and therefore, the DPCs,
\n            need not mention any thing about these two elements of review
\n            in the minutes. When Government of India has specifically
\n            issued instructions\/guidelines to be followed in such matters,
\n            the appellants\/authorities are bound to follow the same.
\n            Without complying with the said instructions, the appellants
\n            have taken a flimsy stand that such a practice is in vogue for
\n            the last three decades. Prolonged continuation of illegality
\n            cannot acquire the status of legality for any purpose. Further
\n            from paragraph No. 16 of the order of the Tribunal, we are able
\n            to see that the learned counsel for the authorities represented
\n            before the Tribunal that he would personally brief the
\n            authorities about the need for proper documentation of the DPC
\n            proceedings, probably realizing the mistake committed by the
\n            authorities. In such circumstances, taking a stand by the
\n            authorities that everything is well with them, does not appear to
\n            be fair and therefore, we are unable to appreciate the stand
\n            taken by the appellants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                Page 7 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
            11. Further more, the Tribunal, to find out whether the
\n            authorities have acted fairly and considered the cases of the
\n            applicants in both the writ petition herein had called for the
\n            original minutes of the DPC held on 13.10.2003 and found the
\n            entire procedure adopted by the authorities to be illegal, which
\n            resulted in miscarriage of justice.          The Tribunal, had
\n            scrupulously analysed the case in depth as could be seen from
\n            paras 12 and 13 of its order, in the light of the discrimination
\n            and injustice meted out to both the applicants in both the writ
\n            petitions just for the reason that they have knocked the doors of
\n            justice, and had quashed the DPC proceedings held on
\n            13.10.2003. The said files were also placed before us for our
\n            perusal. Having gone through the entire files submitted by the
\n            appellants, we are unable to take a different stand from that of
\n            the one taken by the Tribunal, since the entire proceedings
\n            depicts a clear picture of go-bye given to the instructions issued
\n            in this regard by the Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
            12.      Having gone through the entire materials placed on
\n            record, including the original files submitted by the appellants
\n            and the order of the Tribunal, we are unable to find any
\n            illegality or error apparent on the face of the record or any
\n            perversity in approach of the Tribunal, so as to invoke the
\n            extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
\n            Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no merits in both
\n            these writ petitions.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal as<\/p>\n
also the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the DPC procedure and<\/p>\n
the recording of minutes is the procedure which has been followed for more<\/p>\n
than three decades in the Department of Space. He further submitted that<\/p>\n
Para 10 of the judgment of the High Court, quoted above, suffers from an<\/p>\n
                                Page 8 of 17<\/span>
\nerror apparent on the face of record, since the Division Bench had not<\/p>\n
adverted to the stipulations contained in the first paragraph of DPT OM<\/p>\n
dated 9.11.1998, which unequivocally states that the directions contained<\/p>\n
therein are not applicable to the DOS as in the case of the Department of<\/p>\n
Atomic Energy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation<\/p>\n
(for short `DRDO’). It was pointed out that the suggestion of the Vth<\/p>\n
Central Pay Commission to make the modified Flexible Complementing<\/p>\n
Scheme of Promotion for the Group `A’ Scientists of all the Departments of<\/p>\n
the Central Government without any special dispensation has not been<\/p>\n
accepted by the Government and the merit-based promotion scheme existing<\/p>\n
in these Departments has been allowed to continue, which fact has been<\/p>\n
totally overlooked by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   It was also submitted that orders of reservation issued by the<\/p>\n
Government of India are ipso facto not applicable to the Department of<\/p>\n
Space, as the Scientific & Technical posts in Group `A’ and `B’ in the said<\/p>\n
Department have been exempted from the purview of reservation orders<\/p>\n
under Office Memorandum dated 28.7.1975. But despite the said fact the<\/p>\n
appellant Deptt. complied with the orders of reservation passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal by including SC and ST Member in the DPC and tried to conduct<\/p>\n
                                Page 9 of 17<\/span>
\nthe DPC for the respondents but still the respondents did not consider it<\/p>\n
appropriate to appear in the said interview and availed the opportunity. The<\/p>\n
counsel also submitted that the DPC procedures are being followed in the<\/p>\n
Department for more than three decades which were formulated on the basis<\/p>\n
of a Presidential Notification dated 18.07.1972 conferring special powers<\/p>\n
and privileges on the Department including the powers for formulating all<\/p>\n
matters relating to personnel policy including the norms for recruitment and<\/p>\n
promotion of its personnel. The counsel also submitted that the High Court<\/p>\n
acted without jurisdiction in issuing the directions as contained in the<\/p>\n
impugned order passed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   The counsel appearing for the respondents, however, refuted the<\/p>\n
aforesaid submissions and contended that both the orders of the High Court<\/p>\n
as also the order passed by the Tribunal are legal and valid, and therefore,<\/p>\n
the directions issued in the said orders are required to be strictly complied<\/p>\n
with by the appellants. It was also submitted that the Office Memorandum<\/p>\n
dated 09.11.1998 clearly provides that the recommendation of Fifth Pay<\/p>\n
Commission for application of modified Flexible Complementing Scheme<\/p>\n
proposed by it in all the departments, including the Department of Space,<\/p>\n
Atomic Energy and DRDO without any special dispensation for any special<\/p>\n
                                Page 10 of 17<\/span>
\ndepartment, had not been accepted and thus the existing scheme of merit<\/p>\n
based promotion system covering the Group `A’, `B’ and `C’ personnel, as<\/p>\n
presently applicable in the Department of Atomic Energy would also<\/p>\n
continue to apply to the Department of Space and the DRDO also. It was<\/p>\n
also submitted that the contentions of the appellants that they are not bound<\/p>\n
to follow the procedure laid down in modified Flexible Complementing<\/p>\n
Scheme is unjustified and untenable. It was also submitted that the DPC has<\/p>\n
not recorded its findings in detail while DPC is required to record in detail<\/p>\n
its finding including the objective assessment of the merit of the candidate<\/p>\n
on each factor considered for such assessment and therefore DPC acted in<\/p>\n
derogation and in violation of its own circulars and consequently the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Tribunal to evolve a proper procedure for eliminating the<\/p>\n
elements of bias, prejudice or undue victimization of the candidates was<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.    In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the parties, we have scrutinised the records, particularly, the Office<\/p>\n
Memorandum dated 9.11.1998. A bare perusal of the 1st paragraph of the<\/p>\n
said Memorandum would make it crystal clear that the directions contained<\/p>\n
therein are not applicable to the department of Space as in the case of<\/p>\n
Department of Space and Atomic Energy and DRDO. It was clearly stated<\/p>\n
                                Page 11 of 17<\/span>
\nin the said Memorandum that the recommendation of the Fifth Pay<\/p>\n
Commission to make modified Flexible Complementing Scheme of<\/p>\n
promotion for Group `A’ Scientists for all the Departments of the Central<\/p>\n
Government without any special dispensation for any individual<\/p>\n
department, has not been accepted by the Government and the merit based<\/p>\n
promotion existing in these Departments has been allowed to continue. The<\/p>\n
said stipulation in the office memorandum appears to have been overlooked<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal and the High Court while issuing the directions as contained<\/p>\n
in their orders impugned herein.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to our<\/p>\n
notice a statement showing Review of the cases of the respondents by the<\/p>\n
Department Promotion Committee. A perusal of the same would indicate<\/p>\n
that both the respondents 1 and 2 have absented themselves in almost all the<\/p>\n
selection processes before the Departmental Selection Committee.        We<\/p>\n
would like to extract the aforesaid statement, which is as under:<\/p>\n
      “DETAIL OF REVIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1. Respondent No. 1 (Shri B. Annathurai) – for promotion to the post<\/p>\n
      of Scientist\/Engineer `SB’\/’SC’<\/p>\n
       Sl. No.     DPC Review Date of                Result
\n                              Interview
\n                   as on<\/p>\n
                                   Page 12 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
01.          01.04.1999      20.04.1999      Attended             (but
\n                                             recommended            as
\n                                             `Deferred’)\n<\/p>\n
02.          01.10.1999      05.11.1999      Absent\n<\/p>\n
03.          01.04.2000      30.03.2000      Absent\n<\/p>\n
04.          01.04.2001      26.02.2001      Absent\n<\/p>\n
05.          01.04.1999*     04.10.2001      Absent\n<\/p>\n
06.          01.04.1999*     13.11.2001 (re- Absent
\n                             scheduled)\n<\/p>\n
07.          01.04.2002      19.03.2002      Absent\n<\/p>\n
08.          01.04.1999*     21.11.2002      Attended             (but
\n                                             recommended            as
\n                                             `Status-Quo’ as he
\n                                             declined to answer
\n                                             technical questions)\n<\/p>\n
09.          01.04.2003      26.03.2003      Absent\n<\/p>\n
10.          01.04.1999*     13.10.2003      Attended             (but
\n                                             recommended            as
\n                                             `Deferred’)\n<\/p>\n
11.          01.04.2004      22.03.2004      Absent\n<\/p>\n
12.          01.04.2005      25.02.2005      Absent\n<\/p>\n
13.          01.04.2006      24.04.2006      Absent\n<\/p>\n
14.          01.01.2007      07.02.2007      Absent<\/p>\n
             @\n<\/p>\n
15.          01.01.2008      07.12.2007       Absent<\/p>\n
             @\n<\/p>\n
16.          01.01.2009      28.11.2008       Absent<\/p>\n
             @<\/p>\n
@ Review for promotion to the post of Sci.\/Engr. `SC’ consequent on
\nrevision of norms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2. Respondent No. 2 (Shri E. Chandiran Gandhiji) – for promotion to<\/p>\n
the post of Scientist\/Engineer `SD’<\/p>\n
                           Page 13 of 17<\/span>
\n       Sl. No.     DPC Review Date of                Result
\n                              Interview
\n                   as on\n<\/p>\n
       01.         01.01.2000 23.12.1999           Attended               (but
\n                                                   recommended              as
\n                                                   “Status Quo”)\n<\/p>\n
       02.         01.01.2001      19.12.2000      Absent\n<\/p>\n
       03.         01.01.2000*     03.10.2001      Absent\n<\/p>\n
       04.         01.01.2000*     13.11.2001 (re- Absent<\/p>\n
                                   scheduled)\n<\/p>\n
       05.         01.01.2002      28.12.2001        Absent\n<\/p>\n
       06.         01.01.2000*     20.11.2002        Attended         (but
\n                                                     recommended        as
\n                                                     `Status-Quo’ as he
\n                                                     declined to answer
\n                                                     questions)\n<\/p>\n
       07.         01.01.2003      23.12.2002        Absent\n<\/p>\n
       08.         01.01.2000*     09.10.2003        Attended         (but
\n                                                     recommended        as
\n                                                     `Status-Quo’)\n<\/p>\n
       09.         01.01.2004      19.12.2003        Absent\n<\/p>\n
       10.         01.01.2005      28.12.2004        Absent\n<\/p>\n
       11.         01.01.2006      23.12.2005        Promoted to the post
\n                                                     of Scientist\/Engineer
\n                                                     `SD’<\/p>\n
      *As directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal<\/p>\n
      The above statements clearly indicate that although several<\/p>\n
opportunities have been granted to the respondents but they chose not to<\/p>\n
appear in the interviews held for the purpose of considering their cases for<\/p>\n
promotion whereas now they have been arguing for their promotion with<\/p>\n
retrospective effect. It is necessary to mention at this stage that respondent<\/p>\n
                                 Page 14 of 17<\/span>
\nno. 2 Sh. E. Chandiran Gandhiji appeared in the DPC held on 01.01.2006.<\/p>\n
He also appeared in the interview held on 23.12.2005 and he was found<\/p>\n
suitable for promotion in the said selection and accordingly an order of<\/p>\n
promotion was passed in his case, promoting him to the post of<\/p>\n
`Scientist\/Engineer `SD” in the year 2006, which he has accepted without<\/p>\n
any protest. If the appellants despite being given opportunity to appear in<\/p>\n
the selection choose not to appear in the selection and stayed away from it<\/p>\n
they cannot seek for direction from the court for their promotion without<\/p>\n
appearing in the interview from a retrospective date. The reason for such<\/p>\n
non-appearance in the interview when called for selection and also for not<\/p>\n
answering questions in the selection when they appeared has not been given<\/p>\n
by the respondents. In any case such action on their part was at the peril of<\/p>\n
their own service career and also definitely detrimental to their interest.<\/p>\n
Having taken such a vital unilateral decision they now cannot seek to take<\/p>\n
advantage of their own wrong.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to notice that the<\/p>\n
Department has been following an elaborate procedure for assessing the<\/p>\n
suitability or otherwise of the candidates for promotion and the said<\/p>\n
procedure is based on the guidelines issued by the Government, which<\/p>\n
                                Page 15 of 17<\/span>
\nprocedure is being followed for a very long period of time, and therefore,<\/p>\n
the order and the direction issued by the Tribunal which has been upheld by<\/p>\n
the High Court to evolve a new procedure for the recommendations of the<\/p>\n
DPC was unwarranted and uncalled for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   On close scrutiny of the procedure, which is a part of the Government<\/p>\n
Notifications dated 30.09.1976 and 22.02.1988, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
Department has a detailed procedure for assessing the suitability of the<\/p>\n
candidates for promotion. As per such procedure overall assessment of the<\/p>\n
candidates has to be taken into consideration i.e. keenness exhibited by the<\/p>\n
official in the pursuit of his profession, ability to take up higher<\/p>\n
responsibilities, managerial\/leadership qualities, theoretical knowledge, etc.<\/p>\n
and more specifically achievements of the candidates being reviewed and<\/p>\n
consequently such a procedure cannot be termed as either arbitrary or<\/p>\n
unreasonable. In the matter of promotion to the job of Scientists\/Engineers<\/p>\n
working in area like Space, there is no possibility for compromising in the<\/p>\n
matter of merit and therefore merit is prime consideration which is given<\/p>\n
emphasis.\n<\/p>\n
                                Page 16 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
20.   Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that the findings and conclusions recorded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and upheld by the High Court cannot be sustained and are<\/p>\n
therefore by this Judgment we set aside and quash the same.<\/p>\n
21.   Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed.<\/p>\n
                                                    ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          [S.B. Sinha]<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nFebruary 20, 2009<\/p>\n
                               Page 17 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 Author: . M Sharma Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1128-1129 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17728-17729 of 2007) Union of India & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3207,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009"},"wordCount":3207,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T02:35:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-b-annathurai-anr-on-20-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr on 20 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}