S.VISWANATHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is currently employed as Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) in the respondent Port Trust. The next avenue of promotion through selection for the petitioner is to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Mechanical) (for short 'DCME'). The said post of DCME fell vacant in the month of April, 2012. One Mr.Leelaprasath, who was due to retire in the month of April, 2012, was selected to the said post and he joined the said post and retired from service in end April, 2012. The 4th respondent called for application for the post of DCME from all Major Ports under the Ministry of Shipping by fixing due date of May, 2012 under composite method. Four officers, including the petitioner and the 5th respondent applied for the said post. Subsequently, one of the four candidates, viz., Mr.Saroj Kumar Dass, Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Mechanical) from Kandla Port withdrew his application due to personal reasons.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that promotion to the post of DCME is purely on the basis of selection, the criteria being on the basis of merit and ability and seniority to be reckoned only when merit and ability are almost equal. The scrutiny of the candidates and their records was done by the Department Promotion Committee, which is scrutinised on the basis of the Annual Confidential Reports as well as clearance from the Vigilance Department.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the Department Promotion Committee, though met several times, did not take a decision, but out of the blue, the Department Promotion Committee selected the 5th respondent for the post of DCME. It is the case of the petitioner that since the 5th respondent belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community, the certificate of his community was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which had cancelled his certificate and for the said purpose, the Vigilance Cell of Port Trust did not give clearance and that departmental enquiry has been taken up. It is the further case of the petitioner that consequent upon the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Port Trust, the 5th respondent along with few other persons, applied for the same, though at the specific point of time, the respondent was left with eight years of service, but the application of the 5th respondent was rejected. The petitioner, though is having good service record in the form of Annual Confidential Report as well as clearance from the Vigilance Department was not considered for the post but the 5th respondent was selected and appointed for the said post, which is against the service rules of the Port Trust. Though the petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act , as proper and true statements have not been provided to the petitioner, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition challenging the said selection.