ANSWERED ON-21.03.2013

Implementation of SC decision for amending Rules of Promotion


(a) whether, clarification of, “not adjudged unfit for promotion” to be, as ‘‘nothing adverse against the candidate’’ is given in Supreme Court Citation 1995 AIR 1457, 1995 SCC(3) 532JT, 1995 (3) 336, 1995SCALE(2) 282, in relation to Department of personnel and Training”s (DoPT) statutory OM. NO. 1/9/69-Estt (SCT) dated 26th March 1970;

(b) whether it is as per stipulation of DoPT/Department of Public Enterprises(DPE);
(c) whether it is applicable to all Public Sector Undertaking (PSU);
(d) whether addition of interview in promotion in the light of supreme court’s civil appeal No. 5314 of 2007 declaring Recruitment and Promotion rules, not being statutory, and not being inline with clarification of above citation needs Parliament’s approval?


Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. (SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY)
(a): The Supreme Court in the matter of National Federation of SBI & Ors. V/s. Union of India (1995 AIR 1457) considered the issue whether concession as per O.M. No. 1/9/69-Estt (SCT) dated 26.3.1970 tantamounts to reservation and has held that in the matter of promotion by selection to the posts within Class I, which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 2250 (Pre-revised), there is no reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes(SCs) / Scheduled Tribes (STs) but they are entitled to the concession contained in para 2 of the OM dated 26.3.1970 issued by the Ministry ofHome Affairs. The concession is that those SC/ST officers who are senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which the select list is being drawn up will be included in the select list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion.
The Supreme Court has further held that the said candidates would not be entitled, for the purpose of selection one grading higher than the grading otherwise assigned to them on the basis of their record of service. The O.M. dated 26.3.1970 also contains the same instructions that they would not be given, for this purpose, one grading higher than the grading otherwise assigned to them as per their recordof service.
(b): The extant guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committee provide that the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods of procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. The DPCs should make their own assessment on the basis of the entries in the Confidential Reports(CRs) now Annual Performance Appraisal Reports(APARs) because sometimes the overall gradings in a Confidential Report may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately but by adopting some stands/yardstick/norms. The procedure should not be vitiated on grounds of bias, mala-fide or arbitrariness. As per latest instructions, the DPC is required to grade the officers as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ only, after determining the merit of those being assessed for promotion.
(c): The instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training on the subject have been extended to all Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) by the Department of Public Enterprises vide their O.M. dated 27th September, 1978.
(d): The Supreme Court in K. A. Nagamani V/s. Indian Airlines and others (CA 5314/2007) has held that the Recruitment Rules of the Indian Airlines framed by the Corporation were not framed under any statute and therefore are not statutory rules. The Recruitment Rules for the posts and services under the Central Government are delegated legislation and therefore are statutory in nature. Such Rules after notification are laid before the Parliament.