Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on CSIR Under Secretary Promotions: Director General, CSIR vs. J.K. Prashar & Ors. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 65
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can an employee be denied promotion based on a technicality, even when they meet the substantive requirements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in reversing the promotion of certain employees to the post of Under Secretary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established service rules. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Sandeep Mehta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over promotions to the post of Under Secretary within the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The appellant, the Director General of CSIR, challenged the High Court’s decision to reverse the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3, and consequently, affirming the claim of respondent no. 1 for promotion. The High Court had found that the promotions of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were in violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘statutory rules’). Respondent no. 1, who was initially denied promotion, was later deemed eligible by the High Court. The primary contention was whether respondent no. 1 met the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Under Secretary under the statutory rules.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially accepted the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1, reversing the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The High Court held that the promotions of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were in violation of the statutory rules. The appellant, CSIR, then sought a review of this decision, which was rejected by the High Court. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision, arguing that respondent no. 1 was not eligible for promotion as he had never independently performed the duties of a Section Officer. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the judgment.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982. Specifically, the rules governing promotion to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer, which state:

“Under Secretary/Administrative Officer(Rs. 10,000-325-15,200)
Recruitment to this Grade shall be made by promotion, on the basis of merit from amongst Section Officers (General) and Sr. Personal Asstts.(now re-designated as Private Secretaries) who have rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in the grade of Rs. 6500-200-10,500 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee which shall interview the eligible candidates.
i.Vacancies in this grade occurring in a year shall
be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from amongst Section
Officers (Gen.) and Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-
designated as Private Secretaries). In the event of
non-availability of suitable officers for filling up
vacancies earmarked for a Cadre, such unfilled
vacancies shall not be filled up from officers of
another Cadre; and
ii.25% of the Private Secretaries who have
completed minimum six years of approved service as
Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-designated as Private
Secretaries) be made to work as Section officer (Gen.)
for a period of one year before they are considered for
promotion to the post of Under
Secretary/Administrative Officer.
Note: Governing Body also approved
appointments/selections made so far as Sr. Personal
Asstts., now re-designated as Private Secretaries to
the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer
(Gr. I) in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500.”

The rules stipulate that promotions to Under Secretary are to be made from Section Officers and Senior Personal Assistants (now Private Secretaries) with at least 8 years of service in the specified grade. Additionally, 25% of Private Secretaries with six years of service must work as Section Officers for one year before being considered for promotion. The High Court interpreted these rules to mean that respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not meet the eligibility criteria as they were only given “attachment” as Section Officers and not formal appointments.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Director General, CSIR):

• The primary argument of the appellant was that respondent no. 1 was not eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary because he had never performed the duties of a Section Officer on an independent basis.
• The appellant contended that respondent no. 1 did not possess the required experience as per the statutory rules.
• The appellant argued that promotions should be based on merit, and respondent no. 1 was not graded as ‘Good,’ whereas respondent nos. 2 and 3 were graded as ‘Very Good.’
• The appellant submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were given the benefit of one year’s experience as Section Officers, which made them eligible for promotion.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments (J.K. Prashar):

• Respondent no. 1 argued that he was formally appointed as a Section Officer vide Order dated 15th March, 2004.
• He contended that the certificates issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3 were based on “attachment” and not formal appointments as Section Officers.
• Respondent no. 1 argued that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion under the statutory rules.

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3’s Arguments:

• Respondent nos. 2 and 3 contended that they were given the benefit of one year’s experience as Section Officers, which made them eligible for promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issues can be summarized as:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the post of Under Secretary.
2. Whether respondent no. 1 was eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary under the statutory rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the interpretation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 and the factual matrix of the case.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities considered by the Court in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The fact that respondent no. 1 was formally appointed as a Section Officer vide Order dated 15th March, 2004, which was not disputed by the appellant.
• The finding that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were not formally appointed as Section Officers but were merely given “attachment,” which did not meet the criteria under the statutory rules.
• The Court’s emphasis on the importance of adhering to the established service rules.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: Respondent No. 1 met the criteria for promotion because he was formally appointed as a Section Officer, and the appellant did not dispute this fact. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not meet the criteria because their experience as Section Officers was based on “attachment” and not formal appointments, which was a violation of the statutory rules. The Court did not delve into any alternative interpretations, focusing on the plain reading of the rules and the factual matrix.

The Supreme Court stated, “In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the action of the appellant in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court.”

The Court also noted, “A perusal of these certificates reflects that services of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of them as Section Officer.”

Further, the Court clarified, “However, we make it clear that the present adjudication shall be confined to the case of respondent no. 1 and will not be considered as a precedent.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Promotions must adhere strictly to the established service rules.
• Formal appointments are necessary to fulfill eligibility criteria; mere “attachment” or temporary assignments are insufficient.
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in promotions.
• This judgment underscores the need for organizations to ensure that their promotion processes are transparent and compliant with the relevant rules.
• The judgment is specific to the facts of the case and will not be considered as a precedent.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but the effect of the judgment is that respondent no. 1 is deemed eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary, and the promotions of respondent nos. 2 and 3 remain reversed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that promotions must strictly adhere to the established rules, and any deviation from these rules can be challenged. The judgment clarifies that temporary assignments or “attachments” cannot be considered equivalent to formal appointments for the purpose of fulfilling eligibility criteria for promotions. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the need for strict adherence to service rules in matters of promotion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director General, CSIR, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that respondent no. 1 was eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary as he was formally appointed as a Section Officer, and the promotions of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were correctly reversed by the High Court as they did not meet the eligibility criteria under the statutory rules. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established service rules in matters of promotion.