Partly allowed

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri. V.K. Nair and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2008WP/2389/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to fill vacancies. The impugned order was modified; the direction to promote was set aside, but the Government was directed to constitute a committee and consider eligible persons, including respondents, for promotion within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order of C.A.T. directed to promote was set aside; Government directed to constitute committee and decide on promotion within six months.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri. V.K. Nair and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

/ 1/

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2003

¶4

The Union of India & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

V.K. Nair & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Smt.S.V. Bharucha for Petitioners. Shri.S.P. Saxena & A.S. Rao for Respondent No.1 to 6.

¶9

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH &

¶10

V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2008.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner-Union of India challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28^th February, 2002. By this order, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to promote the respondents to the post of Chargeman Grade-I against the vacancies of the year 2000. Grievance of the petitioners against the order is that the Tribunal could not have directed, even assuming that the petitioners were selected or were entitled to be selected, the appointment by promotion against vacancies of the year

¶13

It is submitted that it is the prerogative of the employer whether to

¶14

/ 2/

¶15

fill in vacancies or not to fill in the vacancies. Court or the Tribunal can not direct the Government to make promotions or appointment.

¶16

The learned counsel for the Respondents accepts the position that the Tribunal could not have directed the Government to make promotions. Learned counsel, however, submits that the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has found that so far as vacancies of the year 2000 are concerned, it wrongly selected number of candidates and therefore, the Government was directed to constitute a panel for re-consideration of issue of preparation of the selection panel. He submits that, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for being selected against the vacancies of the year 2000.

¶17

In our opinion, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Government to make promotions. It was for the Government to decide whether they want to fill in vacancies which occurred in the year 2000. However, it goes without saying that in case the Government decides to fill in vacancies of the year 2000, it will have to consider all the persons including the respondents who may be in the zone of consideration and

¶18

/ 3/

¶19

after considering them in accordance with law, prepare a panel and then make promotions in the vacancies of the year 2000. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶20

Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28^th February, 2002 is modified.

¶21

Order of the Tribunal directing the Government

¶22

to promote the respondents against vacancies of 2000 is set aside.

¶23

In case the Government decides to fill in

¶24

vacancies, it will constitute a Departmental Promotional Committee in accordance with law and require that Panel to consider all the persons who may be in the zone of consideration including the respondents in accordance with law and in case, the respondents are selected, Government will promote them to the promotional posts against the vacancies of 2000.

¶25

Government is directed to take decision as indicated above as expeditiously as possible in any case

¶26

/ 4/

¶27

within a period of six months from today.

¶28

Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶29

( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶30

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri. V.K. Nair and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri. V.K. Nair and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Malika Mahadevan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harishchandra Patil S/O. Bhaskar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saibaba Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aarkay Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Supply Board and Ors.

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs Neera Devi