Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Durgadass and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1253 and 1254(N) of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC1132; [1978(36)FLR452]; (1978)IILLJ83SC; (1979)1SCC59; 1978(10)LC365(SC)
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
RespondentDurgadass and ors.
Excerpt:
.....husband is proper. - none of the petitioners before the high court had better confidential remarks than the persons who were selected. in the circumstances, therefore there was absolutely no justification for the high court to interfere in the wit petitions and quash the selection made by the departmental promotion committee mr rame shwar nath, counsel for the respondents submitted that the high court has really taken the case of one candidate who was not selected though he had better remarks than others who were selected......court dated the 6th december, 1968 by which a batch of writ petitions filed by durga das, dharam chand, hari chand and symsar chand have been allowed and the selection made by the government was quashed.2. appearing in support of the appeal, mr. v.g mahajan has raised a short point before us. he has drawn our attention to chart printed at pages 328 to 330 in order to show that the selections made by the departmental promotion committee were not, in any way, arbitrary. none of the petitioners before the high court had better confidential remarks than the persons who were selected. the departmental promotion committee, therefore, appears to have proceeded pure by on the basis of merit and ability while selecting the candidates fit the post of superintendent, which admittedly was a.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Himachal Bench of the Delhi High Court dated the 6th December, 1968 by which a batch of writ petitions filed by Durga Das, Dharam Chand, Hari Chand and Symsar Chand have been allowed and the Selection made by the Government was quashed.

2. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. V.G Mahajan has raised a short point before us. He has drawn our attention to chart printed at pages 328 to 330 in order to show that the selections made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were not, in any way, arbitrary. None of the petitioners before the High Court had better confidential remarks than the persons who were selected. The Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, appears to have proceeded pure by on the basis of merit and ability while selecting the candidates fit the post of Superintendent, which admittedly was a selection post It has not been how to us nor proved to cur satisfaction that the cases of the petitioners before the High Court were not considered In fact, the chart shows that their cases were full considered but in view of their confidential rolls, they were not considered fit for selection. In the circumstances, therefore there was absolutely no justification for the High Court to interfere in the wit petitions and quash the selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee Mr Rame shwar Nath, counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has really taken the case of one candidate who was not selected though he had better remarks than others who were selected. This person, however, has no grievance and the High Court ought not to have taken this fact into consideration. For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court dated 6th December, 1968 is hereby set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //