SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -I, one is required to be a substantively appointed Chief Engineer, Level -II, and the candidate concerned should have worked in the Department for 27 years. It is not the requirement of the Statuary Rules that the person having so been appointed as Chief Engineer, Level -II is required to serve as such for any length of time. The fact remains that on 11 th February 2011, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -II. The Rules provide that the post of Chief Engineer, Level -II as well as of Chief Engineer, Level -I shall be supplied only by promotion. The criteria for promotion as has been prescribed by the Rules is merit.

(2.) ON 11th February 2011, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the merit of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -II. It was satisfied with such merit, and accordingly, made a recommendation for promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -II. On the same date, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of promotion of the respondent No.5 to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -I, and found the respondent No.5 fit for being promoted to the said post, and accordingly, made a recommendation. While the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner matured in a promotion order on 16th March 2011 , the recommendation in favour of the respondent No. 5 matured in a promotion order on 14th March 2011. The fact as above would clearly demonstrate that apparently there is nothing wrong in concluding the matters of the promotion of the petitioner and the respondent No.5.

(3.) HOWEVER , the fact remains that on 11th February 2011, the Departmental Promotion Committee knew that the petitioner being fit for being promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -II, may also became a contender for being promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -l, but it considered the lone case of the respondent No.5 for being promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level -I, despite the applicable Rules pointing out that the case of three persons against one post shall be considered. In other words, despite knowing that the petitioner would become eligible for being promoted to the post of Level -I, the lone case of the respondent No.5 was considered to determine his merit. In other words, knowingly an attempt was made to ensure that inter se merit for the one available post is not considered. This action on the part of the Departmental Promotion Committee is interfereable. It must be kept in mind that for the administration of the affairs of the State, it is obligatory on the part of the Departmental Promotion Committee to select the best. When they knew that there is a possibility of considering the merit of another person, it was improper to conclude the selection of the respondent No.5 and thereby prevent adjudgment of the best for the promotional post of Chief Engineer, Level -I. We accordingly interfere with the matter and direct a review DPC to be held where the merit of all Level -II Engineers shall be considered proceeding on the basis that respondent No.5 is also a Level -II Engineer. In the event the review DPC holds that anyone else is more meritorious than the respondent No.5, it goes without saying that the review DPC shall cancel the recommendation made for promotion of the respondent No.5 and make a recommendation for promotion of the other Level -II Engineer, who has been found to have better merit. In the event the review DPC finds that the respondent No.5 has better merit than other Level -II Engineers, it goes without saying that the review DPC shall uphold the promotion of respondent No.5 as was accorded to him on 14th March 2011. With the observation as above, the writ petition is disposed of. Let the review DPC be held as quickly as possible but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the respondent No. 1.