SADANANDAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Section Officer in the Administrative Secretariat of the Kerala Government. The post to which he could aspire to be promoted was that of an Under Secretary. But that is a selection post Promotions have therefore to be made in accordance with R.28(b)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC.) did not include the petitioner's name in Ext. P6 list which was published on 31-7-1975; nor in Ext. P7 list published on 6-11-1976. Aggrieved by the non inclusion of his name, the petitioner challenged Exts. P6 and P7 in O. P. No. 3743 of 1975. One of his principal contentions therein was that neither Ext P6 nor Ext. P7 revealed the reasons for non inclusion of his name. This Court accepting the contention that reasons had to be recorded, disposed of the Original Petition with a direction to the DPC. (2nd respondent therein) to reconsider Exts. P6 and P7. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered by the DPC. on the basis of which the Government passed Ext. P8 dated 28-9-1977 stating that the DPC. had found the petitioner not suitable for inclusion in the select list published in the notification dated 6-11-1976. Ext P8 refers to the reasons which prompted the DPC. to reach their conclusion. Ext. P8 is challenged in the present petition. Exts. P6 and P7 are also challenged for the reason that Ext P8 is based on them.

(2.) The reasons stated in Ext. P8 for non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the two lists prepared for the years 1975 and 1976 respectively (Exts. P6 and P7) are: In respect of the list for the year 1975, the petitioner's confidential reports for the three preceding years, viz., 1972, 1973 and 1974, were considered and compared with those of 22 other persons. The report for the year 1972 showed that the petitioner's capacity for control over the staff was a mere "average" and that the general remark about him was "an officer of average ability" For the year 1973 the remark about him was "fair". For the year 1974 it was 'an officer of fair capacity". The DPC. was of the view that the petitioner compared unfavourably with 22 other persons whose names were included in the select list for 1975. For the subsequent year also, the DPC was of the view that the petitioner's name could not be included in the select list published on 6-11-1976, for even during the year 1975 the confidential report showed that the petitioner did not compare favourably with 15 other persons whose names were included in the list for 1976.

(3.) These reasons are more elaborately discussed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The minutes maintained by the DPC. have been shown to me. The reasons stated in Ext. P8 are fully borne out by the remarks of the DPC. in the minutes