/2023 INSC 0172/
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8110 OF 2011
Manoj Kumar Jindal           …Appellant
Versus
Rajni Mahajan & Ors.                     …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The   order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   of   Punjab   &   Haryana   upholding   the   order   passed   by
the Single Bench is under challenge before this Court. It is a
case   in   which   the  appellant   as   well  as  the   respondent  No.1
are   serving   in   Department   of   Technical   Education   and
Industrial Training, Punjab.   The root cause of the litigation
was   an   order   dated   08.11.2007   vide   which   the   respondent
No.1 was reverted from the post of senior lecturer to that of

2
lecturer.   The Single Bench of the High Court set aside that
order.  The same was upheld in intra­court appeal before the
Division Bench.  
2. The   respondent   No.1   was   promoted   as   senior   lecturer
vide   Memo   dated   16.05.2007.     A   notice   dated   09.09.2007
was   served   upon   the   respondent   No.1   to   show­cause   as   to
why she should not be revered back to the post of lecturer.
An   interim   reply   was   furnished   by   her   on   17.09.2007,
seeking   liberty   to   furnish   detailed   reply   after   getting   copies
of the relevant documents.  
3. Without   affording   her   opportunity   to   file   a   detailed
reply,   vide   impugned   order,   she   was   ordered   to   be   reverted
to  the post  of  lecturer.   The  respondent  No.1 as well  as the
appellant   were   working   as   lecturers.     The   respondent   No.1
was   senior   to   the   appellant.     The   post   of   senior   lecturer
became available on 31.05.2006.  A meeting of Departmental
Promotion   Committee   (DPC)   was   held   on   15.03.2007
wherein the respondent No.1 was recommended to be given
promotion.   She joined as senior lecturer on 17.03.2007.   A
notice   was   served   upon   her   to   show­cause   as   to   why   she

3
should not be revered back to the post of lecturer  vide  order
dated   08.11.2007.     Her   order   of   promotion   was   withdrawn.
It   is   the   aforesaid   said   order,   which   was   impugned   before
the   High   Court.     The   reason   for   reversion   was   that   she   did
not have requisite benchmark at the time when the vacancy
became   available.     However,   there   is   no   dispute   that   when
the   candidates   were   considered   for   promotion   and   the   DPC
held   on   15.03.2007,   the   respondent   No.1   was   having   the
requisite benchmark and was recommended to be promoted.
The learned Single Bench opined that the ACRs for five years
preceding the date of consideration for promotion were to be
taken   into   account   and   not   from   the   date   of   accrual   of   the
vacancy.  
4. Though, the contention sought to be raised by learned
counsel for the appellant was that it is a case of  malafide  as
the   DPC   was   postponed   on   the   intervention   of   the   then
Deputy   Chief   Minister.     No   doubt   such   a   stand   is   available
in   the  written   statement  filed  by   the   official  respondents   as
well   as   the   present   appellant.     However,   the   fact   remains
that the appellant as such had not alleged any  malafide .  All
what was placed before the Court by the official respondents

4
was   the   material   in   terms   of   the   official   record.     With
reference to the aforesaid fact, what is available on record is
that on a representation made by the respondent No.1 to the
then   Deputy   Chief   Minister,   he   directed   that   the   DPC   be
held   after   receipt   of   the   ACR   for   the   immediately   preceding
year.     When   the   vacancy   arose   on   31.05.2006,   the
respondent  No.1 requested that the  ACR for  the year  2005­
06   should   also   be   part   of   the   record   before   the   DPC   when
the matter regarding promotion is considered.  
5. We   are   not   finally   opining   on   the   issue   as   to   whether
the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only
up   to   the   year   the   vacancy   arose   should   have   been
considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC.
But the fact remains that the respondent no.1 was promoted
way   back   in   the   year   2007.     More   than   15   years   have
elapsed.     She   was   otherwise   also   senior   to   the   appellant   in
the   cadre   of   lecturers   and   there   may   have   been   further
promotions of both the parties as well as in the department
where they are working. Any order passed at this stage may
affect   number   of   persons   and   further   may   result   in
unsettling   many   positions   which   have   already   settled   with

5
the lapse of time.  Hence, we do not find that a case is made
for interference by this Court.
6. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.    
……………………………J.
                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]
..…………….……………J.
     [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi 
14.03.2023