NARAYANAN Vs. FACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these original petitions, challenge is against the appointment of the 4th respondent as Junior Personnel Secretary in the service of FACT, Udyogamandal. Petitioners are senior personnel assistants. The method of promotion to the post of Junior Personnel Secretary is by assessment of merit, by conducting an interview and on the basis of the performance appraisal of the officers concerned. For the above purpose, the Departmental Promotion Committee conducted an interview to fill up the two posts of Junior Personnel Secretaries. The petitioners, 4th respondent and others were interviewed by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Though the petitioners were seniors to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent was given higher rank in the select list prepared for the purpose of promotion. Though the petitioners were also included in the list, they were ranked below the 4th respondent. There were only two posts of Junior Personnel Secretaries. 4th respondent and another person who is senior to the petitioners were appointed. In Ext. P1 seniority list of senior personnel assistants in the Udyogamandal Division of FACT, the petitioner in O.P.No. 13727 of 1992 is ranked as No. 10 and the petitioner in O.P.No. 5550 of 1993 is ranked as No. 13, the 4th respondent as No. 15.

(2.) Ext. P4 (in O.P.No. 5550/1993) is the extract of the promotion policy. According to Ext. P4 merit of the individual officer will form the basis of the determining his "promotability". Subject to this, seniority will be given the due weightage in the case of two or more individuals with equal merit being found suitable for the higher post. Therefore, it was argued that once the petitioners and the 4th respondent were found eligible to be included in the select list, then their interse seniority in the feeder category cannot be given a go by.

(3.) On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that merit and seniority were assessed on the basis of the interview and the personal performance. The ranking even in the select list was based on merit. Thus, the seniority becomes irrelevant when the Departmental Promotion Committee found that the 4th respondent is more meritorious than the petitioners.