Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Poonam Verma vs Cantonment Board on 9 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on - 18.06.2026
Delivered on - 09.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2391 (S/S) of 2015
Smt. Poonam Verma
........Petitioner
Versus
Cantonment Board, Dehradun and others
........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the Cantonment Board,
Dehradun/respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal
and Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocates and Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for
the respondent no. 4.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this petition is made to the Resolution
No. 906-16 dated 30.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.
1/Cantonment Board and the order dated 14.08.2015 issued by
the respondent no. 2/Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,
Dehradun, by which the respondent no. 4 was promoted to the post
of Principal, SMBG Cantt Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt,
Dehradun (“the College”).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. This is 4th round of litigation between the parties. The
chronology of the events, which led to filing of the instant writ
petition is as below.
2
(i) The respondent no. 1 Cantonment Board
established the College. The service conditions of
the Cantonment Board are governed by the
provisions of the Cantonment Fund Servants
Rules, 1937 (“1937 Rules”) framed under Section
280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
(ii) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior
Lecturer (Civics) in the college on 13.10.1997 and
she joined on 20.10.1997.
(iii) The respondent no. 4 was appointed in the
college as Junior Lecturer (English) on
01.07.1999.
(iv) On 31.12.2000, the then Principal of the College
retired creating a vacancy of Principal on
31.12.2000.
(v) The petitioner was senior most amongst the
Junior Lecturers but the Cantonment Board
promoted the respondent no. 4 on the post of
Principal temporarily by resolution dated
08.01.2001 and subsequently by resolution
dated 24.01.2002.
(vi) The first round of litigation began when the
petitioner challenged the action of the
Cantonment Board, in Writ Petition (S/B) No.
286 of 2002, Smt. Poonam Verma v. Cantonment
Board and others (“the First Petition”).
(vii) The First Petition was decided on 19.04.2003,
when the Court directed the respondent
3
Cantonment Board to make regular appointment
to the post of Principal.
(viii) The petitioner filed a Review Application in the
First Petition, which was rejected on 19.04.2003.
(ix) The Cantonment Board also filed a Review
Application in the First Petition, which was
rejected on 06.06.2003.
(x) Again by resolution dated 14.07.2003, the
Cantonment Board declared the petitioner unfit
for the post of Principal in the College and
resolved to promote and appoint the respondent
no. 4 as Principal.
(xi) The petitioner filed second Writ Petition No. 1392
of 2003 (S/S), Smt. Poonam Verma v.
Cantonment Board and others, challenging the
resolution dated 14.07.2003 of the Cantonment
Board (“the Second Petition”).
(xii) The Second Petition was decided by an order
dated 28.06.2006 of this Court when the
petitioner was given liberty to make a
representation to the respondent Cantonment
Board.
(xiii) The petitioner made representation pursuant to
the judgment dated 28.06.2006 passed in the
Second Petition, but it was rejected by the
Resolution No. 104-1 dated 13.09.2006 of the
Cantonment Board.
4
(xiv) The petitioner finally challenged the resolution
dated 13.09.2006 in Writ Petition (S/S) 1674 of
2006, Smt. Poonam Verma v. Cantonment Board
and others (“the Third Petition”).
(xv) The Third Petition was decided by this Court on
13.05.2010, when the Central Government was
directed to classify the post of Principal either as
direct recruitment post or a promotional post.
(xvi) The judgment and order dated 13.05.2010
passed in the Third Petition was challenged by
the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 100 of 2010,
Smt. Poonam Verma v. Cantonment Board,
Dehradun and others (“the Special Appeal”).
(xvii) The Special Appeal was decided by this Court on
06.05.2015, quashing the resolution dated
14.07.2003 and 13.09.2006 and the respondent
Cantonment Board was directed to consider the
case of the petitioner and the 4th respondent in
terms of proviso to Rule 5-B(8) of the 1937 Rules
and keeping in view the principle laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court relating to the criteria of
seniority-cum-merit.
(xviii) Thereafter, the Cantonment Board by its
resolution dated 30.07.2015 resolved to promote
the respondent no. 4 to the post of the Principal
of the College. Consequent to it, the respondent
no. 2/Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment
Board issued the impugned order appointing the
5
respondent no. 4 to the post of Principal of the
college on promotion. They are impugned.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned
resolution dated 30.07.2015 is in absolute violation of the
provisions of the law, particularly when specific interpretation of
the Rule has been made by this Hon’ble Court in respect of the
same parties; the respondent Cantonment Board has promoted the
respondent no. 4 on the post of Principal in an predetermined
manner ignoring the judicial pronouncement made by this Court in
the Special Appeal. Post decision dated 06.05.2015 passed in the
Special Appeal, there remained no doubt as to what would be the
criteria for giving promotion on the post of Principal of the college
and it was legally incumbent upon the respondent Cantonment
Board to make the promotion applying the principle of seniority-
cum-merit. It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the
law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the case of
seniority-cum-merit, the seniority would play the primacy and the
inter se merits of the candidates will not be compared, however, the
respondent Cantonment Board ignoring the aforesaid principle of
law compared the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-Ã -vis the
respondent no. 4 and promoted her giving a complete go by to the
seniority of the petitioner.
5. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed their counter
affidavit. According to it, Rule 5-B(8) of the 1937 Rules provides
that appointments to the promotion post shall be made by the
appointing authority on the seniority lists maintained for this
6
purpose by the Board, subject to rejection of those considered unfit;
provided that promotion to selection posts shall be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit.
6. It is the case of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 that the
petitioner did not challenge the order of this Court dated
06.05.2015 passed in the Special Appeal, instead she approached
the OBC Commission, Uttarakhand by making a complaint.
However, in para 12 of their counter affidavit, the respondent nos.
1, 2 & 3 have stated that the petitioner participated in the selection
process in the month of July, 2015 without any objection or notice.
If she had any objection or was not satisfied with the direction
dated 06.05.2015 passed by this Court in the Special Appeal, she
could have challenged the same before the higher forum. It has
been the case of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 that in compliance of
the judgment dated 06.05.2015 of this Court passed in the Special
Appeal, an expert technical committee of three members was
constituted, who were experts in the field of education. The
committee interviewed both the candidates. Their wisdom cannot
be challenged in the court of law.
7. It has further been the case of the respondent nos. 1, 2
& 3 that the documents of the committee reveal that, in fact, the
petitioner is not a deserving candidate for the post of Principal,
which has to lead and run an educational institution. With regard
to the conduct of the committee, according to the respondent nos.
7
1, 2 & 3, the committee had allotted marks and submitted their
separate reports before the President, Cantonment Board, which is
the highest decision taking body, which after due consideration
accepted the report of the committee.
8. According to the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, in the
committee, the petitioner did receive only 48 average marks out of
100 marks, whereas the respondent no. 4 scored 73.67 average
marks out of 100 marks. It has been submitted that the petition is
devoid of merit.
9. The respondent no. 4, the candidate, who was
appointed as Principal by the impugned resolution and order, filed
separate counter affidavit and in paras 10, 11 and 12 has stated
about the constitution of the committee post judgment dated
06.05.2015 of this Court in the Special Appeal and has stated that
the interview committee met on 15.07.2015 and both the
candidates i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 faced the
interview and produced all the testimonials regarding educational
qualifications, experience, etc. and after examining them the
committee awarded point marks on each head, such as educational
qualification, experience, extra-curricular activities, general
awareness, confidence, bilingual competence and managerial
activities. Based on the marks allotted, the merit list was prepared.
The petitioner secured 48 average marks out of 100, whereas the
respondent no. 4 secured 73.67 average marks out of 100.
Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 was promoted to the post of
Principal of the college.
8
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
matter of appointment on seniority-cum-merit, merit is also given
due consideration. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu and
others, (1998) 6 SCC 720, the learned counsel submits that first
and foremost, the competent authority had to prescribe for the
minimum necessary merit and it is only thereafter the assessment
of merit could have been done based on service record, interview,
etc. and those who cross the minimum necessary merit could be
promoted, while considering the seniority. He referred to para 15 of
the judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed in the Special Appeal, in
which the Division Bench of this Court referred to the judgment in
the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra). Learned counsel has also referred
to other parts of the judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed in the
Special Appeal to argue that the criteria for promotion is seniority-
cum-merit; inter se seniority has no significance; the assessment is
done so as to assess the minimum necessary merit of the
candidates and if a senior deserves that minimum necessary merit
standard, he is to be promoted, despite the fact that the junior to
him is far more meritorious than the minimum necessary merit
standards.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the
following points in his submissions:-
(i) Earlier by resolution dated 14.07.2003, the
respondent Cantonment Board had appointed
the respondent no. 4 as Principal of the college,
9examining their inter se merit and the same
mistake has been repeated again by the
resolution dated 30.07.2015 and the order of the
respondent no. 2/Chief Executive Officer dated
14.08.2015. Again the Cantonment Board has
put the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 to
compete so as to assess their inter se merit,
which, it is argued is not permissible in the
matter of promotion when the criteria is
seniority-cum-merit.
(ii) According to the respondents, the petitioner did
get 48 average marks, but nowhere it is
suggested by the respondents as to how 48
average marks is less than the minimum
necessary merit.
(iii) The respondent no. 4 is not B.Ed. qualified.
(iv) Post judgment in the Third Petition, again the
respondents have not made the selection in
accordance with law.
(v) The composition of the committee was not upto
the mark. The Principals of other colleges were in
the committee for making assessment of a
candidate to the post of Principal, which it is
argued cannot be termed as a competent
committee.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has widely read the judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal.
10
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 submits that since the petitioner participated in the interview
committee, now its composition and method of making assessment
cannot be questioned. It is argued that if the petitioner had any
objection to it, she would have raised objections before she
participated in the interview. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 has placed reliance on the
principle of law as laid down in the case of Anupal Singh and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,
Personnel Department and others, (2020) 2 SCC 173.
14. In the case of Anupal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that the result of the interview cannot be
challenged by a candidate, who has participated in the interview. In
para 56 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
“56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be
challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview
and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and
ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal v. State
of J&K [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 712] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9)
“9. … The petitioners also appeared at the oral
interview conducted by the Members concerned of the
Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the
contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners
took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral
interview. Only because they did not find themselves to
have emerged successful as a result of their combined
performance both at written test and oral interview, they
have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a
candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the
11interview, then, only because the result of the interview is
not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and
subsequently contend that the process of interview was
unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed in the
case of Anupal Singh (supra) that “It is thus clear that the
candidates who appeared in the interview were well aware
about the modification/revision in number of vacancies of
Technical Assistants in different categories. The private
respondents/intervening applicants have appeared in the
interview with their eyes wide open regarding the modified
vacancies to be filled up in various categories of the posts.
Having appeared in the interview without any demur or
protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the
selection process on the ground that there was modification in
the number of vacancies in different categories and they are
estopped by the principle of estoppel from challenging the
same.”
16. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also submits
that the Government can decide mode as to how make selection. It
is a selection post. Seniority alone is not a criteria; merit is also to
be seen. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the principle of law as laid down in the case of State of
Odisha and others v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
879.
12
In the case of Sreepati Ranjan Dash
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“27. The Government as the employer, in its
wisdom, chose to select and appoint Assistant
Regional Transport Officers by way of direct
recruitment through combined competitive
recruitment examination conducted by the OPSC.
In such case, Dash and Sahoo would have no right
to be appointed or promoted to such post other
than in a manner consistent with the 2021 Rules. A
profitable reference may be drawn to a decision of
this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16, where it was
held thus:
6. … If these three posts are
selection posts it is manifest that the State
of Rajasthan is not bound to promote the
petitioner merely because he stood first in
the Gradation List. The circumstance that
these posts are classed as ‘Selection Grade
Posts’ itself suggests that promotion to these
posts is not automatic being made only on
the basis of ranking in the Gradation List
but the question of merit enters in
promotion to selection posts. In our opinion,
the respondents are right in their contention
that the ranking or position in the Gradation
List does not confer any right on the
petitioner to be promoted to selection posts
and that it is a well-established rule that
promotion to selection grades or selection
posts is to be based primarily on merit and
not on seniority alone. The principle is that
when the claims of officers to selection posts
is under consideration, seniority should not
be regarded except where the merit of the
officers is judged to be equal and no other
criterion is therefore available. ……
28. The post being a selection post and not one of
promotion, the manner of selection is a matter of policy
which completely vests with the Government. If the
13Government deemed it fit to change the method of
selection, it was within its power, authority and
competence and unless the changed policy is proved to be
arbitrary, Dash and Sahoo cannot have a claim to the
post.”
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 also
raised the following points in his submission:-
(i) Setting up of benchmark is not necessary in the
matter of selection based on seniority-cum-merit.
What is to be seen is minimum necessary merit,
which can be assessed by individual assessment.
Learned counsel has referred to the judgment in
the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) and read over
para 10 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“10. On the other hand, as between the two
principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of
“seniority-cum-merit” lays greater emphasis on
seniority. In State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood [AIR
1968 SC 1113 : (1968) 3 SCR 363 : (1970) 1 LLJ
370] while considering Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore
State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules,
1957 which required promotion to be made by
selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, this
Court has observed that the Rule required
promotion to be made by selection on the basis of
“seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to
discharge the duties of the post from among
persons eligible for promotion”. It was pointed out
that where the promotion is based on seniority-
cum-merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a
matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if
he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the
higher post, he may be passed over and an officer
junior to him may be promoted.”
14
It is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
also held that where promotion is based on seniority-
cum-merit, a senior cannot claim promotion as a
matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone; his merit
is also to be seen. Referring to para 18, in the judgment
of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), learned Senior Counsel further
argued that fixing of minimum benchmark is not
necessary when the criteria is seniority-cum-merit.
Para 18 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah
(supra) reads as follows:
“18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the
criterion of “seniority-cum-merit” in the matter of
promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary
merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior,
even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a
comparative assessment of merit is not required to be
made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the
competent authority can lay down the minimum standard
that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment
of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for
promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning
marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the
basis of service record and interview and prescribing the
minimum marks which would entitle a person to be
promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.”
(ii) Minimum benchmark is one of the modes of
making assessment for appointment, when the
criteria is seniority-cum-merit. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 has placed reliance on the principle of law
as laid down in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Srivastava and others v. SamyutKshetriya
Gramin Bank and others, (2010) 1 SCC 335.
15
In the case of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 of
the judgment observed as follows:-
“13. Thus it is clear that a process whereby
eligible candidates possessing the minimum
necessary merit in the feeder posts is first
ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made
strictly in accordance with seniority, from among
those who possess the minimum necessary merit is
recognised and accepted as complying with the
principle of “seniority-cum-merit”. What would
offend the rule of seniority-cum-merit is a process
where after assessing the minimum necessary
merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit
(instead of seniority) from among the candidates
possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the
criteria adopted for assessment of minimum
necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable,
it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to the
principle of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly
hold that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to
ascertain the minimum merit necessary for
discharging the functions of the higher post, is not
violative of the concept of promotion by seniority-
cum-merit.”
(iii) In the instant case, the Cantonment Board had
constituted an expert committee and assessed
the minimum necessary merit of the petitioner
and the respondent no. 4. It is argued that it is
one of the modes of assessing the minimum
necessary merit. It is lawful and permissible.
Therefore, no interference is warranted. In
support of his contention, learned counsel has
further placed reliance on the principle laid down
16
in the case of Rama Negi v. Union of India &
others, (2022) 5 SCC 150.
In the case of Rama Negi (supra), when the
assessment of the candidates was made, it was
found that senior was appointed when the junior
was also facing departmental proceedings. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that
the suitability of the candidate was attributed to
two factors i.e. merit and inter se seniority and
also noted that in the matter of merit, it was
found that the selected candidate had
unblemished record. In para 31 of the judgment,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“31. This Court must also be mindful of the
fact that the Cantonment Board applied the
criterion of seniority-cum-merit and treated the
post to be of the “selection category”. Moreover, the
unblemished service record of the appellant vis-Ã -
vis the pending disciplinary proceedings against
Respondent 3, (eventually resulting in penalty),
were taken into account. All these circumstances in
our opinion, weigh in favour of the appellant Rama
Negi. Her suitability for the selection post was
attributable to two factors i.e. merit of the
candidate and the inter se seniority. Despite the
difficulty in encapsulating the parameters for
“merit”, a significant marker can be found in the
unblemished record of the employee. A marred
service record, though not an insurmountable bar,
must carry some consequences, and it could be a
comparative disadvantage in promotion for a
selection post. The employer’s preference for a
person with a clean service record can be well
appreciated.”
17
18. It may be noted that in the case of Rama Negi (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court did not advert to the criteria for selection on
the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the standard of minimum
necessary merit as such, which has been defined and elaborated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), which
is three-Judges Bench judgment.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3
submits that in the Special appeal, directions were given to the
Cantonment Board to consider the appointment of the Principal of the
College in accordance with the principle of law. It is argued that
individual basis assessment can be made in such cases. He would
refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Prakash Jagannath Mane v. Hon’ble Registrar G. H.C. of Jud.
Bom.and others (W.P. No. 6073 of 2012).
20. It may be noted that in the case of Prakash Jagannath
Mane (supra), the issue was relating to appointment of Registrar of the
Court and in page 7 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has categorically stated that in view of the conjoint reading of the
rules, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the promotion to the post of Registrar will be
governed by only seniority-cum-merit rule and further held that “In
fact, the Rules do not specifically lay down whether seniority-
cum-merti should be the criteria or whether it should be merit-
cum-seniority as far as the promotion to the post of the Registrar
is concerned.” In the case of Prakash Jagannath Mane (supra)
reference to the judgment in the case of K Samantaray v. National
Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 9 SCC 286 has also been made.
18
21. In the case of K. Samantaray (supra) also, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that if the promotion is based on seniority-cum-
merit, a person cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue
of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of
higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may
be promoted.
22. Extensive pleadings and long drawn arguments have
been made. But, the issue is within a very short compass.
23. In the Special Appeal, on 06.05.2015, a Division Bench of
this Court has already held that the appointment of the Principal is to
be treated as a selection post, which shall be filled up by applying the
principle of seniority-cum-merit. This discussion was made in para 14
of the judgment dated 06.05.2015 of the Division Bench of this Court
in the Special Appeal. On the question of application of seniority-cum-
merit, from para 15 to para 21 of the judgment dated 06.05.2015
passed in the Special Appeal, this discussion has been made by this
Court. Para 18 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) has
already been quoted hereinabove, as referred to by the parties. At the
cost of cost of repetition, it may be noted that in the case of B.V.
Sivaiah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that “the
criterion of “seniority-cum-merit” in the matter of promotion
postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for
efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less
meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of
merit is not required to be made.”
19
24. What is important to be noted is that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), in the same para 18
has observed that in order to assess the minimum necessary merit,
the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is
required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the
employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. It further
provides that “such assessment can be made by assigning marks on
the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service
record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which
would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-
cum-merit”.
25. Para 10 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah
(supra) has been referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 4. It also speaks that the seniority is to be given
weightage. This para 10 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah
(supra) does not stipulate as to how to assess the merits. It also does
not speak that merit alone may be a criteria for promotion when the
criteria is seniority-cum-merit. Merit has to be examined, but seniority
is to prevail if the merits are equal and if there is minimum necessary
merit.
26. The question is how to assess the minimum
necessary merit?
27. In the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), which is a three-
Judges Bench judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in fact,
discussed the process of selection when the criteria is seniority-cum-
merit and has interpreted the concept of minimum necessary merit in
20
para 18 of the judgment, which has been referred to and which has
been discussed hereinbefore.
28. That two instances, which have been referred to in the
judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in para 26 and 29 of the judgment while examining the
promotion of Branch Manager in Rayalseema Grameena Bank held
that if only those officers who had secured the highest number of
marks were ultimately promoted, it was rightly held by the High Court
that it was contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. In para 26,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“26. Having heard the learned counsel for the Rayalaseema
Grameena Bank as well as the five Branch Managers who
had been promoted as Area/Senior Managers in the
proceeding on 1-12-1989, we find that no case is made out
for interference with the said view of the High Court. The
promotion process laid down by the Rayalaseema Grameena
Bank in its circular dated 27-9-1989, on the basis of which
the selection for promotion had been made on 1-12-1989,
sets apart 34 marks for seniority, 10 marks for qualifications,
20 marks for interview and 56 marks for performance which
shows that out of a total number of 120 marks, the
maximum number of marks that could be awarded for
seniority is 34 and that 0.75 mark was to be given for each
completed month of service over and above the minimum
qualifying service. In other words, if two persons are
appointed on the same day, the same number of marks had
to be awarded for seniority. Moreover, out of a total number
of 120 marks, more than 50% marks were set apart for
interview and performance. The High Court has found that
only those officers who had secured the highest number
of marks were ultimately promoted. It is not a case where
minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for assessment
of performance and merit and those who secure the
prescribed minimum qualifying marks are selected for
promotion on the basis of seniority. In the
circumstances, it must be held that the High Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the mode of selection
21that was in fact employed was contrary to the principle
of “seniority-cum-merit” laid down in the Rules. Civil
Appeals Nos. 3799-3803 of 1996 filed by the Rayalaseema
Grameena Bank as well as Civil Appeals Nos. 3811-3812 of
1996 filed by the promoted officers are, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. Similarly, in para 29 of the judgment also, in the case of
B.V. Sivaiah (supra), the appointments based on merit, when the
criteria was seniority-cum-merit was not upheld. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in para 29 of the judgment observed as follows:-
“29. From the circular dated 16-3-1992 laying down the
promotion process, it is evident that selection was to be made
on the basis of marks to be awarded by the Selection
Committee and that out of a total number of 100 marks, 55
marks were to be awarded for seniority while 25 marks were
assigned for performance and 15 marks for interview. There
was no indication in the said circular as to how 55 marks for
seniority were to be given to the Branch Managers who were
eligible for consideration for promotion on 31-3-1992. The
said circular did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks
for assessment of performance and merit on the basis of
which an officer would be considered for being selected
and, as pointed out by the High Court, the selection was
made of only those officers who secured the highest
number of marks amongst the eligible officers. In the
circumstances, the High Court, in our view, has rightly
held that this method of selection was contrary to the
principle of “seniority-cum-merit” and it virtually amounts
to the application of the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in Civil Appeals Nos.
3809-3810 and 3798 of 1996 and the same are also liable to
be dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. What is not to be done is assessment of inter se merit. In
para 29 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), the
22
Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that, in fact, the circular awarding
marks did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for assessment of
performance and merit on the basis of which an officer would be
considered for being selected, which was not correct by the standard
of seniority-cum-merit.
31. The judgment in the case of Rama Negi (supra) does not
discuss as such the minimum necessary standard. Even otherwise,
in that case, merit and inter se seniority both were seen and the
unsuccessful candidate had blemished service record. The factual
narration in the case of Rama Negi (supra) was distinct. The principle
as laid down in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) has not been
overruled in the case of Rama Negi (supra). Under the factual
situation of the case, the decision in the case of Rama Negi (supra)
has been made.
32. Earlier, on 14.07.2003, the Cantonment Board had
appointed the respondent no. 4 as the Principal of the College. That
was challenged in the Second Petition, which was decided on
20.06.2006, when the Court had directed the authorities to consider
the representation that was to be made by the petitioner.
33. What was done by the impugned order in the Second
Petition has been quoted by the Division Bench of this Court in para
20 of the judgment passed in the Special Appeal, which reads as
follows:
“20. In the light of the case law, we will approach now the
impugned orders. In the order dated 14.07.2003, which is passed
pursuant to the earlier direction of the Court, authorities proceeded
on the basis that the appellant is unfit. In the second impugned
23order, following is the discussion which we find in the concluding
paragraph:
“Therefore, in order to establish the inter se merit, as
warranted by the proviso to Rule 5-B(8) of the Cantonment
Fund Servants Rules, 1937, between Smt. Poonam Verma
and Smt. Nidhi Khanduri, both of them were interviewed by
the Board today. To assist the Board in the said interview
eminent educationist Shri R.C. Shingal, Principal Cambrian
Hall, Dehradun was also present. Shri R.C. Shingal guided
the Board in conducting the interview of both the candidates
to assess their administrative acumen and merit. After a
detail interview of both the candidates the Board found
that Smt. Nidhi Khanduri was a better and more suitable
candidate by virtue of her merit as was ascertained
through the interview, for the post of Principal of
Shaheed Mac Bahadur Girls’ Inter College. Having thus
ascertained the inter se merit, the Board resolved to ratify the
decision taken to the extent of promotion of Smt. Nidhi
Khanduri to the post of Principal of Shaheed Mac Bahadur
Girl’s Inter College vide CBR No. 3-3 dated 14.7.2003”.
(emphasis supplied)
34. The above narration categorically makes it clear that
earlier when on 14.07.2003, the petitioner was declared unfit for the
position of the Principal and the respondent no. 4 was promoted as
the Principal, inter se merit was examined and at that occasion also,
after a detailed interview of both the candidates, the Cantonment
Board found the respondent no. 4 as a better and more suitable
candidate. The words “better and more suitable” are not in
consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Inter se merit of
the candidate is not to be seen in such matter. What is to be assessed
is minimum necessary merits of the candidates participating in the
promotion process and if a senior possesses minimum necessary
merit, he gets qualified for promotion inspite of the fact that the
candidate lower to him is more meritorious.
24
35. What has been done in the instant case? It is the stand
of the respondents that after the judgment dated 06.05.2015 of the
Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal, a committee
consisting of three eminent persons were constituted for the purpose
of the interview. They assessed the petitioner and the respondent no.
4 under different heads, namely, educational qualification,
experience, extra curricular activities, awareness, confidence,
bilingual competence, managerial aptitude and based on separate
marks awarded by the members of the expert committee, the average
marks which the petitioner got was 48 %, whereas the respondent no.
4 got 73.67 % and the President, Cantonment Board approved the
selection of the respondent no. 4.
36. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 has
extensively read over the proceedings of the interview committee as to
how questions were asked and how they were replied. Out of three
expert members, the first one records about the petitioner that she
was satisfactory in answering the questions, whereas for the
respondent no. 4, he writes that the respondent no. 4 answered all
the questions with far better approach. The second member of the
committee recommends the respondent no. 4 for the Principal of the
College because she has done her education through regular courses
and is aware about the recent educational development. Moreover,
she was confident and had bilingual competence. The third member
of the committee made an interview report and found the petitioner
not suitable and the respondent no. 4 suitable to the post of
Principal.
25
37. The non-suitability of the petitioner has not been found
by the Board as such. Though one member has stated that the
petitioner is not suitable for the post of Principal, but the other two
have not given such opinion. They have made comparative
assessment between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The
first member, who was a Principal of Cambridge Hall, Dehradun
found the petitioner satisfactory in answering the questions, though
in the comparative assessment, he writes that the respondent no. 4
answered all the questions with far better approach. Similarly, the
second member, who was the Section Master, RIMC, recommends the
respondent no. 4 but does not write anything against the petitioner.
He has made inter se assessment and gave 57 marks to the
petitioner, whereas the respondent no. 4 was awarded by him 79
marks and based on the comparative assessment, he made the
recommendation.
38. Inter se assessment of merit is not a criteria for
promotion when it is to be done on seniority-cum-merit basis. Para
18 of the judgment in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) lays down the
guidelines. The competent authority has to lay down the minimum
standard. In the instant case, it has not been done. Despite the
directions issued by the Division Bench in judgment dated
06.05.2015 passed in the Special Appeal, the competent authority did
not lay down the minimum standard that is required for promotion to
the post of the Principal of the College. The Cantonment Board also
did not prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the candidates,
who are eligible for consideration for promotion. Merely, an interview
committee was constituted, which made a comparative assessment of
26
the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The interview committee did
not find the petitioner unfit, although one of the members had found
her unfit, but the other two members had found the respondent no. 4
better than the petitioner and cumulatively the interview board gave
48 % marks to the petitioner, whereas the respondent no. 4 was given
73.67% marks, out of 100. Based on inter se assessment, by the
resolution dated 30.07.2015, the promotion has been made, which is
against the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Consequently, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned Resolution No. 906-
16 dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Cantonment Board and the order
dated 14.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 deserve to be
quashed.
39. The writ petition is allowed. The Resolution No. 906-16
dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Cantonment Board and the order
dated 14.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 are quashed.
40. For promotion to the post of Principal of the College,
the competent authority i.e. the Cantonment Board, Dehradun is
directed to firstly lay down the minimum necessary merit that is
required for the post of Principal of the college. Thereafter, the
Cantonment Board shall also prescribe the mode of assessment of
merit of the teachers, who are eligible for consideration for
promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on
the basis of appraisal of performance; on the basis of service record
and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would
entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
Let the entire promotion exercise be completed by the Cantonment
27
Board within a period of two months from today, keeping in view
the fact that the dispute in hand is too old i.e. almost 25 years now.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.07.2026
Avneet/
