Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS versus BATESHWAR SHARMA

Decided
14 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 1133 · 1997 INSC 272
Also cited as
  • (1997) 4 SCC 424 (5 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(L&S) 975 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 1133, margin F

This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, passed on May 2, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 815/95.

p. 1133, margin G

The admitted facts are that while the respondent was working temporarily as Superintending Engineer, several proceedings were initiated against him statedly for his own misconduct in the matter of financial transactions etc. It is not necessary to dilate upon all facts in detail. Suffice it to slate that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), duly constituted by the Government, had gone into the question whether the respondent was fit for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer as Superintending Engineer on regular basis in the proceedings dated 13.9.1995, the DPC found as under :

pp. 1133–1134, margin G

"Hence the Departmental Promotion Committee examined in its meeting all the relevant papers/documents made available by the Department. After examination the Committee found the Officer

p. 1134, margin B

proposed unfit for promotion upto 16.1.1994."

p. 1134, margin C

In view of the above finding of fact by the competent Committee, the question arises : whether the High Court could record finding that the respondent could be deemed to have been promoted from January 17, 1989 \vith all consequential benefits. The view taken by the High Court is palpably illegal for the reason that once the D PC had found that the respondent was unfit for promotion upto that date, the only course that requires to be adopted by the High Court was to remit the matter to the Government for constitution of the DPC to consider his fitmcnt for promotion in later period. in that event, the DPC would go into the merits afresh and find out whether the respondent would be fit for promotion. If he would be found fit and recommendation is made in that behalf, the Government would appoint him on regular basis and he would get seniority only from the date of his promotion; and not from the earlier date when he was working on ad hoc basis. We are not inclined to express any opinion on merits either way. The D.P.C. is the only competent authority to decide on merits.

p. 1134, margin C

Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court stands set aside. The Government is directed to constitute the D.P.C. which would consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the rules on merits and then give appropriate direction in accordance therewith to the Government. We direct the Government to do the entire exercise within three months from the date of the receipt of this order.

p. 1134, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowecl.

p. 1134, margin G