Supreme Court of India
Union Of India And Others vs S.L. Dutta And Others on 16 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 363, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 173, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 363, 1991 (1) SCC 505, 1991 LAB. I. C. 290, (1991) 2 SERVLJ 90, (1990) 4 JT 741 (SC), 1990 (4) JT 741, 1991 SCC (L&S) 406, (1991) 1 SERVLR 564, (1991) 15 ATC 737, (1991) 62 FACLR 90, (1991) 1 LAB LN 326, (1991) 1 CURLR 249
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S.L. DUTTA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1990
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 363 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 173
1991 SCC (1) 505 JT 1990 (4) 741
1990 SCALE (2)1051
ACT:
Air Force Services--Promotions of Air Vice Marshals as
Air -Marshals--Change in Policy--Whether valid.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent No. 1 was commissioned in the Indian Air
Force on July 17, 1954 and in course of time was promoted to
the post of Air Vice-Marshal. He belonged to the Navigation
Stream of the Indian Air Force and was the senior most
officer in his cadre. When he was due for promotion as Air-
Marshal, the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, by its
memo dated October 9, 1987, changed the policy governing
promotions, with the result the prospects of an officer in
the Navigation Stream of the Air Force earning a promotion
to the post of an AirMarshal were substantially reduced. Due
to the change in the promotional policy, respondent No. 1
was unable to get promotion as AirMarshal and he retired as
an Air Vice-Marshal on 31.10.1988. However, before his
retirement he filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High
Court challenging the validity of new promotion policy. On
16.9.1988, an interim order was made by the High Court
directing the Union of India to constitute a Selection Board
and consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion on
merits without reference to the new policy. The appellants
challenged the said interim order before this Court by means
of a special leave petition. The Court granted special
leave, allowed the appeal of the appellants on 4.10.1988 and
set aside the interim order passed by the High Court holding
that the interim order was erroneous. On 16.2.1990, the High
Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1
holding, inter alia, that the new promotion policy was not
flamed after an indepth study and directed that the case of
respondent No. 1 be considered on the basis of the previous
policy. Hence this appeal by the Union of India and others.
The main thrust of the argument advanced by the Union is
that the Court should be reluctant to interfere where the
validity of a policy is concerned, as it was primarily for
the Government to frame a policy and to change it unless it
could be shown that the change was mala fide or for an
ulterior purpose or that the same had been made without
application of mind. On the other hand respondent No. I
inter alia
174
contended that the change of policy affected the conditions
of his service; and that it was arbitrary.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: What was affected by the change of policy were
merely the chances of promotion of the Air Vice-Marshals in
the Navigation Stream. As far as the posts of Air-Marshals
open to the Air Vice Marshals in the said stream were con-
cerned, their right or eligibility to be considered for
promotion still remained and hence, there was no change in
their conditions of service. [181E]
The High Court was in error in making the impugned
order. As has been laid down more than once by this Court,
the Court should rarely interfere where the question of
validity of a particular policy is in question and all the
more so where considerable material in the fixing of policy
is of a highly technical or scientific nature. These are
matters regarding which judges and lawyers can hardly be
expected to have much knowledge by reason of their training
and experience. [182A-C]
In the present case, there is no question of arbitrary
departure from the policy duly adopted because before the
decision not to promote respondent No. 1 was taken, the
policy had already been changed. [182D]
As the proposed change of policy was considered at some
length by as many as 12 Air-Marshals and the Chief of Air
Staff of Indian Air Force, it is not possible to say that
the question of change of policy was not duly considered.
Mere non-availability of the minutes setting out the discus-
sion, is of no relevance. In fact, it would perhaps be
detrimental to the interest of the country if these matters
were not kept confidential. On the basis of this circum-
stances alone, the court cannot hold that the change of
policy was arbitrary. [182E-F]
Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1987] 2 SCC 165 at 173 and 175; Liberty Oil Mills and
Others v. Union of India and Others, [1984] 3 SCC 465 at
478; M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors., [1990] 1 Judgment Today SC 462 at 484;
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan and Nichols Oil Co.,
311 US 570-577, 85 Led. 358, 362; State of Maharashtra and
Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Ors., [1981] 4 SCC
130; K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India and Ors., [1990] 1
Judgment Today 247; A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India and
Others, [1980] Suppl. SCC 559 at 561, referred
175
JUDGMENT:
