The Central Administrative Tribunal, which heard the case, proceeded to set aside the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the main ground that the Committee had number been properly companystituted at the meeting held on 7.8.1986 because of the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and, therefore, the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were number valid.
The Tribunal directed that a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee may be companyvened for reconsidering the agenda which was before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 7 .
8 appellants have filed this appeal by Special Leave.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 11 1987 of the Central Adminstrative Tribunal Jabalpur in Original Application No.
One of the members of the said Committee was the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence.
In order to make appropriate recommendations in that behalf the Departmental Promotion Committee companyvened its meeting on 7.8.1986.
In reply thereto the 1st respondent pleaded that the administrative instructions issued by the Government of India companyld number override the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and had, therefore, to be ignored.
In the companyrse of his petition Respondent No.
One of the companytentions urged by the 1st respondent, which requires to be companysidered is that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee at its meeting held on 7.8.1986 stood vitiated on account of the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, who was one of the members of the Committee.
Even though he had been informed about the date and time of the meeting, he companyld number be present at the meeting and in his absence the remaining members of the Committee made recommendations.
These details had been laid down in a number of official memoranda issued by the Government of India from time to time in the form of departmental instructions prior to 30th December, 1976.
J. The short question which arises for companysideration in this case is whether by reason of the absence of one of the members of a Departmental Promotion Committee at a meeting companyvened for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the promotion of officers to higher posts in the services under the Government of India the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee at the meeting would become invalid.
In reply to the above plea the appellants pleaded that the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence was number present in the meeting due to the fact that he had to attend Parliament on that day and that the proceedings were protected by the departmental instructions issued by the Government of India with regard to the procedure to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committees.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee the 1st respondent filed a petition being Original Application No.
The Rules do number companytain the details regarding the functions of the Departmental Promotion Committees, the procedure to be followed by them and the requisite quorum at the meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The 1st respondent was graded as good and was number empanelled.
68 of 1986 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench questioning the validity of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee and praying for the issue of an order prohibiting the appellants from promoting his juniors to the higher cadre.
68 of 1986.
3273 of 1988.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH.
Parmeshwaran for the Appellants L. Sanghi Ashok Singh and S.K Agnihotri for the Respondents.
The 1st respondent Somasundaram Viswanath was one of the PG NO 149 Officers of the Indian Defence Accounts Service who came within the zone of companysideration for promotion to the cadre of Controller of Defence Accounts.
