P SESHAM RAJU Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that he is working as Upper Division Clerk in the Special Judicial First Class Mobile Court, Manthani. He states that he was called for interview by the Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Head Clerk in District Munsif's Court in Category 3 in Division IV of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service (for short 'the Service'), and that he appeared for the interview held on 31-8-1996. He was not selected but respondents 2 and 3 who were his juniors were selected. He contends that no reasons were given for overlooking him and that his meritorious service and seniority was not given weight by the Selection Committee and that respondents 2 and 3 who were less meritorious than him were selected ignoring his claims. He admits that, earlier, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him while he was working as Deputy Nazir in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate at Sultanabad and that punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was imposed on him by the first respondent, that is, the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in his proceedings dated 11-6-1993. He approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.7677 of 1994 questioning the said disciplinary action taken against him and that Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 25-3-1996 reducing the punishment imposed on him to stoppage of one increment for the period 1-3-1994 to 28-2-1995 without cumulative effect. He submits that disciplinary action could not have been set against him while considering him for promotion along with respondents 2 and 3 ignoring his seniority and meritorious service. He made a representation dated 29-1-1997 seeking promotion to Category-3 post; receiving no reply he now approaches this Court by way of the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the promotions of respondents 2 and 3 in the order of the first respondent in proceedings No.167/PR-15/ADM/DCK/97, dated 7-1-1997, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and holding that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted with effect from 7-1-1997 to Category-3 post in Division IV of the Service and with consequential benefits.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that promotion to the posts in Category-3 of Division IV is to be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered where merit and ability are approximately equal as per Rule 8 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules in force as on to-day. However, he submits that yet seniority should not be ignored and if a senior candidate is not selected, reasons should be given as to why he is not selected. There is no doubt that when selections are to be made on the basis of merit and ability reasonable criteria and norms are to be adopted for assessing merit and ability; but reasons are not required under the Rules.

(3.) It is not the case of the petitioner herein that no such criteria or norms were adopted by the Selection Committee in the present case. He only rests his case on his seniority and his self-assessed merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was communicated any commendatory epistles about his performance or any special mentions were made about his achievements. To make ourselves doubly sure, we sought from the learned Counsel for the petitioner information about any special mention or notings in the service record of the petitioner which would prima facie establish his merit and integrity. Obviously, the petitioner's Counsel could give information about the same only if such a mention or notings were intimated to him (see Chandra Gupta vs. Secretary, Government of India). But in his additional affidavit dated 24-9-1997, the petitioner referred to his confidential reports for the years 1993 to 1996, without explaining how he had access to them. He states that in his confidential reports pertaining to the years 1993 and 1994, it was recorded that his conduct and character were satisfactory and with regard to performance it was recorded as average. For the subsequent years 1995 and 1996, he states that it was recorded that he was fit for promotion. On this basis he contends that ignoring his case for promotion and promoting his juniors is discriminatory and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.