Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3692 OF 2006

Union of India & Ors.                        …     Appellants

Versus

B.S. Darjee & Anr.         … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 26.08.2004  

of  the  Division  Bench of  the  Madras  High  Court  in  Writ  

Petition No. 7929 of 2000 (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1 was  

working  as  Constable  (General  Duty)  under  the  Central  

Industrial Security Force (for short ‘the CISF’).  In 1993, he  

was considered for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik and  

was  empanelled  for  such  promotion.   Before  he  was  

appointed  as  Lance  Naik,  however,  he  was  awarded  the  

punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of

one  year  and  as  per  circulars  of  the  Department  of  

Personnel  and  Training,  Government  of  India,  his  

empanelment for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik had  

to be cancelled on account of  the punishment.  In 1994,  

respondent no.1 was again considered for promotion and he  

was  found  fit,  but  before  his  actual  promotion  he  was  

awarded punishment of withholding of one increment for a  

period of one year and his promotion was again cancelled.  

In  1995,  he  was  again  considered  and  empanelled  for  

promotion to the post of Lance Naik, but before he could be  

appointed, he was awarded the punishment of censure and  

his  empanelment  for  promotion was cancelled.   In 1996-

1997, he was again considered for promotion but he was  

not found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for  

short ‘the DPC’).   

3.  The rank of Lance Naik in CISF was rationalized and  

Lance  Naiks  also  became  Constables  with  effect  from  

10.10.1997, but in the seniority list, Constables who were  

junior to respondent no.1 in service but had been promoted  

as Lance Naiks were placed above the respondent no.1 as he  

had not been promoted to the rank of Lance Naik.  From  

2

1998 onwards, Constables who had completed ten years of  

service  in  the  rank  of  Constables  including  the  service  

rendered  by  them  in  the  rank  of  Lance  Naik  prior  to  

10.10.1997 were eligible for promotion to the post of Head  

Constables.   Under  the  relevant  circulars,  however,  such  

Constables were to be considered only if they came into the  

zone of  consideration as per the seniority list  and as the  

respondent No.1 did not come into the zone of consideration  

for promotion to the post of  Head Constable in the years  

1998,  1999  and  2000,  he  was  not  considered  for  such  

promotion.   

4. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No.  

7929 of  2000 before  the  High Court  and contended that  

though as a Constable he had put in ten years of service  

and was eligible for consideration for promotion, he has not  

been  considered  for  promotion  since  1998.   By  the  

impugned order, the High Court held that the respondent  

no.1 was considered by the DPC for promotion in the year  

1997 and was not found fit for promotion, but he has not  

been considered for promotion in the years 1998, 1999 and  

2000.  The High Court further held in the impugned order  

3

that in the counter affidavit it was indicated that as per the  

messages  received  from  the  Head  Quarters,  only  Lance  

Naiks  had  been  considered  for  promotion,  but  such  

consideration was not proper as under the rules, Constables  

on completion of ten years of service were also eligible and  

there  was  no  justification  to  ignore  the  case  of  the  

respondent  no.1  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Head  

Constable in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Accordingly,  

the  High  Court,  by  the  impugned  order,  directed  the  

appellants  to  consider  the  case  of  respondent  no.1  for  

promotion from 1998 onwards.  

5. We have heard Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional  

Solicitor General appearing for the appellants.  No one has,  

however, appeared for the respondents despite notice.   

6. We find  that  under  the  relevant  rules  and circulars  

issued by  the  Directorate  General,  CISF,  Constables  who  

have completed ten years of service in the rank of Constable  

including the service  rendered in the  rank of  Lance Naik  

prior to 10.10.1997, were eligible for promotion to the post  

of  Head  Constable  and  also  came  within  the  zone  of  

4

consideration, could only be considered for promotion to the  

post of Head Constable.  The case of the appellants in the  

counter affidavit filed before the High Court was that the  

respondent no.1, though eligible, did not come within the  

zone  of  consideration  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Head  

Constable in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.  The relevant  

portion  of  the  counter  affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants before the High Court is extracted hereinbelow:

“The DPC held in the years 1998, 1999 and  2000 for promotion to the rank of HC/GD had  considered the cases of L/Naiks upto PSL No.  9197, 9286 and 11704 respectively.  Since the  petitioner is not holding the rank of L/Naik, he  could  not  come  under  the  zone  of  consideration  for  promotion  to  the  rank  of  HC/GD on  the  basis  of  his  seniority  in  the  rank of Constable so far.”

The aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit filed  

on  behalf  of  the  appellants  before  the  High  Court  are  

supported by circulars dated 21.01.1998, 07.01.1999 and  

08.01.2000,  copies  of  which  are  annexed  to  the  Special  

Leave Petition as Annexures P5, P6 and P7.  

7. We, therefore, find that although the respondent no.1  

was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of  

5

Head Constable  having  completed ten years of  service  as  

Constable, he could not be considered for promotion in the  

years 1998, 1999 and 2000 on account of his lower position  

in the seniority list of Constables and Lance Naiks, who had  

been  rationalized  as  Constables,  were  considered  for  

promotion because they had been placed above respondent  

no.1 in the seniority list.  The High Court has by impugned  

order  directed  consideration  of  the  respondent  no.1  for  

promotion to the post of Head Constable during the years  

1998, 1999 and 2000 because it took the view that not only  

Lance Naiks but also Constables who have put in ten years  

service were eligible to be considered for promotion to the  

post  of  Head  Constable.   The  High  Court  has  failed  to  

appreciate  that,  for  consideration  for  promotion,  a  

Constable  must not  only  be eligible,  but also must come  

within the zone of  consideration and as per the circulars  

dated 21.01.1998, 07.01.1999 and 08.01.2000 (Annexures  

P5, P6 and P7 to the Special Leave Petition), the respondent  

no.1,  though  eligible,  did  not  come  within  the  zone  of  

consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constable.  

The  High  Court  was,  therefore,  not  right  in  issuing  a  

6

direction  in  the  impugned  order  to  the  appellants  to  

consider respondent no.1 for promotion in the post of Head  

Constable  for  the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.  (We may  

mention here that the respondent no.1 has been considered,  

in  the  meanwhile,  and  has  been  promoted  as  Head  

Constable in the year 2000).

8. We  accordingly  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned order of the High Court with no order as to costs.  

.……………………….J.                                                            (P. Sathasivam)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, October 20, 2011.    

7