1988 (9) TMI 315 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Promotion Committee Proceedings

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus SOMASUNDRAM VISWANATH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, did not invalidate the Departmental Promotion ... Whether by reason of the absence of one of the members of a Departmental Promotion Committee at a meeting convened for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the promotion of officers to higher posts in the services under the Government of India the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee at the meeting would become invalid? Held that:- Appeal disposed of. Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the case mainly on the ground that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 7.8.1986 were vitiated on account of the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence at that meeting. As adequate attention has not been given to the other aspects of the case which require fresh consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the Tribunal against which this appeal is filed and - remand the case to it to dispose it of afresh. Issues:Validity of Departmental Promotion Committee recommendations due to absence of a member.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to the validity of recommendations made by a Departmental Promotion Committee due to the absence of a member, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, at the meeting. The respondent contended that the absence of the Secretary invalidated the proceedings. The appellants argued that the absence was due to parliamentary duties and was protected by departmental instructions. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the recommendations, citing improper constitution of the Committee. The Office Memorandum of 30.12.1976 addressed the validity of Committee proceedings in the absence of a member, stating that proceedings would be valid if the absent member was duly invited and the majority of the Committee was present. The Supreme Court analyzed the conflict between the Rules and the Office Memorandum, noting that the Rules were skeletal and lacked details on Committee procedures. The Court held that the Office Memorandum, being a complete code on Committee procedures, was valid and binding unless repugnant to the Rules. The Court concluded that the absence of the Secretary did not invalidate the Committee proceedings on 7.8.1986.The Court emphasized that norms for recruitment and promotion could be established through legislation, rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, or executive instructions. In this case, the Rules lacked specific details on Committee procedures, which were provided in the Office Memorandum. The Court found no conflict between the Rules and the Office Memorandum, upholding the validity of the latter as a comprehensive guide on Committee functions. The Court rejected the Tribunal's decision that the Committee proceedings were vitiated solely due to the Secretary's absence, emphasizing the need for a holistic consideration of all aspects of the case. The Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, remanding the case for fresh consideration, directing attention to all relevant aspects for a comprehensive review.In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, did not invalidate the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of considering all aspects of a case and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a thorough reevaluation within three months. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.