M.BYRANNA Vs. DIRECTOR,CENTRAL CATTLE BREEDING FARM AND ANOTHER
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1749 of 1997
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 836 of 1996
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 836 of 1996
Petitioner: M.BYRANNA
Respondent: DIRECTOR,CENTRAL CATTLE BREEDING FARM AND ANOTHER
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1749 of 1997
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 836 of 1996
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 836 of 1996
Judges: S.P.BHARUCHA & S.C.SEN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 28, 1997
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14,16,136 – Appointment – Post of Live stock Supervisor – Two claimants from feeder cadres – One from Stock man and other Field Assistant – Both graded equal – DPC recommending stock man – Challenge by other.
Held that decision of DPC should not have been interfered, till it acted bona- fide. Tribunals view that seniority should prevail, not approved. Appeal allowed (Para 4)
Constitution
Articles 14,16,136 – Appointment – Post of Live stock Supervisor – Two claimants from feeder cadres – One from Stock man and other Field Assistant – Both graded equal – DPC recommending stock man – Challenge by other.
Held that decision of DPC should not have been interfered, till it acted bona- fide. Tribunals view that seniority should prevail, not approved. Appeal allowed (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The post which is the subject-matter of this appeal is that of Livestock Supervisor.It is to be filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion.We are here concerned with two claim-ants for promotion from the rival feeder cadres,namely,Stockman and Field Assistant.The Departmental Promotion Committee graded the appellant,the 2nd respondent and a third candidate equally,as being very good,but,having regard to the duties assigned to the post of Livestock Supervisor and the nature and length of his service in that line,preferred to recommend the appellant,who was the Stockman,for the post of Livestock Supervisor.The 2nd re-spondent,who was the Field Assistant,approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed the DPC to consider the matter over again.The DPC did so,and again recommended the name of the ap-pellant.The 2nd respondent went again to the Tribunal;the Tribun-al remanded the matter to the DPC;the DPC reconsidered the matter and recommended the appellant the third time round.The 2nd respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the DPC,at which stage the appellant filed the special leave petition.
3. The rule that regulates both direct recruitment and promo-tion for the post of Livestock Supervisor indicates that a direct recruit should have 2 years’ experience in a responsible capacity in a cattle farm,having cultivation of fodder and pasture devel-opment,or management of pedigree cattle,or artificial insemina-tion.It suggests the work the Livestock Supervisor would have to do.
4. The DPC,having regard to the fact that the Stockman and the Field Assistant were equally graded,took into account the factor that the appellant,having worked as a Stockman,had greater ac-quaintance with the work that he would have to do as Livestock Supervisor than the Field Assistant.We do not share the Tribun-al’s view that seniority had to prevail once the Stockman and the Field Assistant had secured an equal grading.So long as the DPC functioned bona fide,its selection should not have been inter-fered with and there is nothing to suggest that the DPC acted otherwise.
5. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the remand ordered by the Tribunal in the order under appeal,the 2nd respondent has been recommended by the DPC.Having regard to the observations of the Tribunal,there was little else that the DPC could have done;and we do not think that factor can in any way influence the decision of this appeal.
6. The appeal is allowed.The judgment and order under appeal is set aside.The original application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.No effect shall be given to any-thing that has been done pursuant to the order of the Tribunal which has been set aside.
7. No order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The post which is the subject-matter of this appeal is that of Livestock Supervisor.It is to be filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion.We are here concerned with two claim-ants for promotion from the rival feeder cadres,namely,Stockman and Field Assistant.The Departmental Promotion Committee graded the appellant,the 2nd respondent and a third candidate equally,as being very good,but,having regard to the duties assigned to the post of Livestock Supervisor and the nature and length of his service in that line,preferred to recommend the appellant,who was the Stockman,for the post of Livestock Supervisor.The 2nd re-spondent,who was the Field Assistant,approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed the DPC to consider the matter over again.The DPC did so,and again recommended the name of the ap-pellant.The 2nd respondent went again to the Tribunal;the Tribun-al remanded the matter to the DPC;the DPC reconsidered the matter and recommended the appellant the third time round.The 2nd respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the DPC,at which stage the appellant filed the special leave petition.
3. The rule that regulates both direct recruitment and promo-tion for the post of Livestock Supervisor indicates that a direct recruit should have 2 years’ experience in a responsible capacity in a cattle farm,having cultivation of fodder and pasture devel-opment,or management of pedigree cattle,or artificial insemina-tion.It suggests the work the Livestock Supervisor would have to do.
4. The DPC,having regard to the fact that the Stockman and the Field Assistant were equally graded,took into account the factor that the appellant,having worked as a Stockman,had greater ac-quaintance with the work that he would have to do as Livestock Supervisor than the Field Assistant.We do not share the Tribun-al’s view that seniority had to prevail once the Stockman and the Field Assistant had secured an equal grading.So long as the DPC functioned bona fide,its selection should not have been inter-fered with and there is nothing to suggest that the DPC acted otherwise.
5. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the remand ordered by the Tribunal in the order under appeal,the 2nd respondent has been recommended by the DPC.Having regard to the observations of the Tribunal,there was little else that the DPC could have done;and we do not think that factor can in any way influence the decision of this appeal.
6. The appeal is allowed.The judgment and order under appeal is set aside.The original application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.No effect shall be given to any-thing that has been done pursuant to the order of the Tribunal which has been set aside.
7. No order as to costs.
