THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SAHASRANAMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing counsel for the Appellant and for the Respondent and giving the matter our careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal should succeed, and that the judgment of the learned Judge should be set aside. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by a Junior Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board against the panel of promotion to the category of Assistant Engineers and the promotion of his juniors, Respondents 2 and 3 to that superior cadre. The promotion of the Respondents and the denial of promotion to the Petitioner was in the year 1970. It is admitted that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is to be assessed on the basis of merit and ability. The post is what is called a selection post. The reasons for the denial of promotion to the Petitioner have been given in paragraph 6 of the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent, the State Electricity Board, thus:

(2.) WE regret that we cannot agree with the reasoning or the conclusion of the learned Judge in respect of the above aspect. Counsel for the Respondent very fairly and promptly agreed before us that the files regarding the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were made available before the learned Judge and that these clearly disclosed that the Departmental Promotion Committee had ruled out consideration of the adverse entries in the confidential records on the ground that these had not been disclosed to the writ Petitioner and his explanation in respect of the same taken. The learned Judge was therefore wrong in holding that the assessment of the Departmental Promotion Committee had been vitiated by the taking into account of the irrelevant consideration of the uncommunicated adverse entries in the confidential records.

(3.) IN the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the learned Judge was wrong in projecting interference under Article 226 with the assessment and decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O.P. No. 3798 of 1971 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.