ANNIE JOHN Vs. D.P.I. TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post in question is a selection post, promotion to which is governed by R.28(b)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Merit and ability is the prime consideration; and seniority comes into play only when merit and ability are approximately equal. The assessment of merit and ability by the competent authority in this case a committee is not amenable to judicial review and no principle of natural justice requires that a person should be heard before he is passed over for promotion on the basis of such assessment. Even if, as is alleged, the competent authority acted on the adverse confidential reports against the petitioner by her superiors in assessing her merit and ability in relation to the other eligible candidates and in directing her supersession, and even if in the making of these confidential reports the executive instructions issued by Government in G. O. (P) S.2 dated 29-1-1960 as amended from time to time were not strictly followed, that can make out no mala fides against the competent authority which is no way responsible for making the. reports. Nor from the allegations made by the petitioner herself does it appear that there was, any contravention of those instructions. The adverse reports were, on the petitioner's own showing duly communicated to her and she made her representations to the scrutinising authority, the 1st respondent. It is the duty of the scrutinising authority to file the representations with the record after disposal and the mere fact that the petitioner received no orders on her representations or at least so she says does not lead to any inference that this was not done. The adverse reports and the petitioner's representations against them must have been before the selection committee the petitioner does not allege the contrary and it is difficult to appreciate the .contention that because the 1st respondent was, as the head of the department, the scrutinising authority in respect of the confidential reports, he is an accuser and thus disqualified from serving on the selection committee and acting as a judge. The case decided in O. P. No. 1646 of 1964 was very different. There the adverse remarks were not communicated to the officer concerned before the selection took place so that the selection committee did not know what representations, if any, he had to make against the remarks under the relevant Government orders the confidential report (with the representations) has to be placed before the committee. And what was directed was that the committee should consider the officer's representation against the adverse remarks before deciding on his supersession.

(2.) I dismiss the petition.