H.S.SIDHU versus DEVENDRA BAPNA & ORS.

H.S.SIDHU versus DEVENDRA BAPNA & ORS.

When a DPC, after evaluating ACRs and on merit, arranges a select list according to the order of inter se merit, the seniority of officiating officers must be fixed in accordance with that merit order. The High Court, under Article 226, cannot reassess the merit itself or interfere with DPC’s bona fide assessment unless the process is shown to be perverse or irregular.

Parties
Appellant: H.S. Sidhu; Respondent: Devendra Bapna; Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment and orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Seniority, Promotion, Departmental Promotion Committee, Seniority for Officiating Employees, Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 226
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Seniority Promotion Departmental Promotion Committee Seniority for Officiating Employees Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.S. Sidhu

Appellant

Devendra Bapna

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fixation of inter se seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent as Joint Directors was valid under applicable rules
  2. 2 Scope and limits of judicial review of Departmental Promotion Committee’s decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Ratio Decidendi

When a DPC, after evaluating ACRs and on merit, arranges a select list according to the order of inter se merit, the seniority of officiating officers must be fixed in accordance with that merit order. The High Court, under Article 226, cannot reassess the merit itself or interfere with DPC’s bona fide assessment unless the process is shown to be perverse or irregular.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment and orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • First respondent to be treated as having retired from the post of Director and entitled to pensionary benefits accordingly.
  • Appellant to be paid arrears of salary and benefits for the post of Director from 05.02.2010 to 31.08.2010; appellant shall also reap the benefits of the post of Director.