VINOD KUMAR SANGAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

VINOD KUMAR SANGAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Non-holding of DPC during Department reorganisation is justified, but when DPC met in 1985, it was required to make selection on yearly basis for vacancies of each year separately; bunching all vacancies together violated instructions in Office Memorandum 24.12.1980 and prejudiced appellant’s chances.

Parties
Appellant: Vinod Kumar Sangal; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Order of Central Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Departmental Promotion Committee, Bunching of Vacancies, Office Memorandum Dated 24.12.1980, Yearly Selection Panels
Service Law Promotion Departmental Promotion Committee Bunching of Vacancies Office Memorandum Dated 24.12.1980 Yearly Selection Panels

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinod Kumar Sangal

Appellant

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Order of Central Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) erred by bunching vacancies of multiple years for promotion, contrary to instructions in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980

Ratio Decidendi

Non-holding of DPC during Department reorganisation is justified, but when DPC met in 1985, it was required to make selection on yearly basis for vacancies of each year separately; bunching all vacancies together violated instructions in Office Memorandum 24.12.1980 and prejudiced appellant’s chances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Without disturbing selection of six persons promoted in 1985, DPC to be convened to consider appellant for promotion against vacancies of 1980, 1982, and 1983 separately as per Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980.
  • If appellant is selected, reversion order dated February 18, 1985 stands revoked and appellant to be regularly promoted with consequential benefits from date of 1985 promotions.