1978 INSC 0122
                                             Union of India and Others

                                                           Vs

                                               Durgadass and Others

                                 Civil Appeal Nos. 1253 and 1254(N) of 1969

                                     (Jaswant Singh, Syed M. Fazal Ali JJ)

                                                      05.04.1978

                                                     JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. -

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

2. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. V. C. Mahajan has raised a short point before us. He has
drawn our attention to the 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 purely on
the basis of merit and ability while selecting the candidates for the post of Superintendent, which
admittedly was a selection post. It has not been shown to us nor proved to our satisfaction that the
cases of the petitioners before the High Court were not considered. In fact, the chart shows that their
cases were fully 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 writ petitions and quash the selection made by the Departmental Promotion
Committee. Mr. Ramesh Nath, counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has really
taken the case of the one candidate who has 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 in to consideration. For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of the High
Court dated December 6, 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.

</html