No unlawful supersession in promotion where adverse service record and comparative merit justified non-recommendation under Article 16.

Promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was examined by comparing the appellant's assessments in different selection years, and no unlawful supersession was found. For 1974 and 1976, non-recommendation was supported by adverse service material, including censure, slow output, and other adverse remarks. For 1977, the recommended juniors had better assessments and the record disclosed no arbitrariness or unfairness. For 1980, the selected candidates had superior assessments or higher placement in the eligible list, and the appellant could not be included because only four names could be recommended. No enforceable grievance of illegal supersession or violation of Article 16 was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was unlawfully superseded in promotion to the Indian Administrative Service in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appellant's claim was examined on the merits despite the Tribunal having dismissed the matter on delay. The Selection Committee had considered his case in several years before 1981. For 1974 and 1976, the non-recommendation was supported by adverse material in the service record, including censure, slow working output, and other relevant remarks. For 1977, although one junior was recommended, the juniors selected had better assessments and the record did not show arbitrariness or unfairness. For 1980, the candidates recommended were shown to have superior assessments or higher placement in the eligible list, and the appellant, though assessed similarly to one officer, could not be included because only four names could be recommended.

Conclusion: The appellant had no enforceable grievance of illegal supersession, and no violation of Article 16 was made out.

---