PRABH
HP
GUMAN SINGH V. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
The appellant was a member of the Rajasthan Rajas than Administrative Service. Aggrieved Aggrieved by the order allotting seniority to him under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, !"#, he filed a writ petition under Art. $$% in $$% in the High &ourt. A single 'udge of the court allowed the petition. However in appeal by the State the (ivision )ench decided against the appellant who who by spec special ial leave leave appe appeale aled d to this this &our &ourt. t. Two othe otherr memb members ers of the the Rajas Rajasth than an Administrativ Administrativee Service, Service, similarly aggrieved filed writ petitions petitions under Art. *$ *$ before this &ourt. The common +uestions that fell for consideration in the appeal and writ petitions were -i whethe whetherr section section $/)-$ $/)-$ and *$ of the Rajasth Rajasthan an Admin Administr istrativ ativee Servic Servicee Rule Rule were were violative of Arts. # and % of the &onstitution because they did not contain any guidelines in the matter of determining determining the merit of candidates -ii whether the circular dated August August $0, !%% issued by the State 1overnment laying down a system of mar2ing for the purpose of determining the merit of candidates was invalid because it was contrary to the relevant Rules in this regard. regard. The appellant appellant also complained complained that adverse remar2s in his confidential confidential report which had not been communicated to him had been ta2en into account against him by the (epartmental Promotion &ommittee. B. JUDGMENT
Rule *$ in essence adopts what is stated in r. $/). The latter rule provides for two methods of selection one based on merit and the other based on seniority3cum3 merit. 4n other words, the rule provides that the promotion based on merit in contradiction to that based on seniority3 cum3merit shall strictly be on the basis of merit. The Selection &ommittee and the Promotion
PRABH
HP &ommittee consist of very responsible and senior officers of the State and being persons of e5perience they can be trusted to evaluate the merits of a particular officer. 6o doubt the word merit7 is not capable of easy definition, but it can be safely said that merit is a sum total of various +uestions and attributes of an employee such as his academic +ualifications, his distinction in the 8niversity, his character, integrity, devotion to duty and the manner in which he discharges his official duties. Allied to this may be various other matters or factors such as his punctuality in wor2, the +uality and out3turn of wor2 done by him and the manner of his dealing with his superiors and subordinate officers and the general public and his ran2 in the service. The various particulars in the annual confidential reports of an officer is !9 carefully and properly noted, :ill also give a very broad and general indication regarding the merit of an officer. Therefore it cannot be stated that rr. $/) and *$ are in any manner vague or do not give any guidelines forassessing the merit of an officer. ;!$)3<= -ii-a The restriction contained in the proviso to sub3r. -$ of r. $/) is +uitereasonable. )efore an officer in the junior scale can be considered as fit for promotion to the senior scale it is necessary that he should have wor2ed on a post in the service at least for some period of time. As to what the +uantum of that period must be is not for this &ourt to lay down. The 1overnment has fi5ed this period as si5 years. 4t cannot be said that it is an improper restriction. ;!$$A3)= -bThe provisions contained in sub3r. -$ confining the selection to senior3most officers not e5ceeding 9 times the number of total, vacancies is also reasonable. Such a provision will encourage the members of the service to aspire for promotion for ma2ing themselves eligible by increasing their efficiencies in the discharge of their duties. ;!$$)3&= -iiiThe object of the impugned circular may be to bring about uniformity in the award of mar2s. )ut the directions contained therein do offend the rules. This is not a case of the 1overnment filling up the gaps or of giving e5ecutive instructions not provided for by or not inconsistent with the rules. 6o discretion is given to the selection or promotion committee to adopt any method other than
PRABH
HP that indicated in the circular. According to the principle laid down by this &ourt in Sant Ram Sharma7s case, if the circular dated August $0, !%% or any part of it gives instructions contrary to or opposed to any of the rules, the circular or that part of the circular to that e5tent would be invalid. )y this test the circular in +uestion was invalid and must be struc2 down. -ivAppellant 1 had made a specific grievance in his writ petition before the High &ourt about the uncommunicated adverse remar2s having been ta2en into account by the (epartmental Promotion &ommittee. The (ivision )ench of the High &ourt was wrong in holding that since the &ommittee had not been made a party to the proceedings this +uestion could not be gone into. The 1overnment which was the appointing authority was a party before the High &ourt. 4t was the duty of the State 1overnment to place before the High &ourt all the materials available before it to enable the &ourt to consider whether the grievance of the appellant was justified or not. The appellant7s case must therefore be reconsidered in the light of the Rules. C. MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE
The few problem that a manager in such a situation would face are > . :hat will the manager consider if there are no any guidelines in the matter of determining the merit of candidates? $. 4f there are two criteria on which the promotions could happen, what would a manager do if both the categories are in contradiction to each other? *. 4n a situation where there is no guidelines laid down to determine seniority and merit, what legitimacy would a selection committee hold and would it@s decision would be considered final? #. :hat people should consist of the selection committee? ". 4n considering the promotion criteria of seniority3cum3merit, should there be an e+ual importance given to merit as it would give the employees an incentive to wor2 in their best way possible in all fields of the job. %. :hat should be the criteria to judge the merit of an employee. :ould the criteria suggested by the court good enough? > •
PRABH
HP The Selection &ommittee and the Promotion &ommittee consist of very responsible and senior officers of the State and being persons of e5perience they can be trusted to evaluate the merits of a particular officer. 6o doubt the word merit7 is not capable of easy definition, but it can be safely said that merit is a sum total of various +uestions and attributes of an employee such as his academic +ualifications, his distinction in the 8niversity, his character, integrity, devotion to duty and the manner in which he discharges his official duties. Allied to this may be various other matters or factors such as his punctuality in wor2, the +uality and out3turn of wor2 done by him and the manner of his dealing with his superiors and subordinate officers and the
•
general public and his ran2 in the service.B :hat is the minimum numbers of years that an employee has to spend in an office to be considered for the seniority criteria.
