H S SIDHU Vs. DEVENDRA BAPNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant being aggrieved by Order dated 4. 3. 2008 passed in w. P. No. 23798/2003 (OA. No. 927/1997) and W. P. (S) No. 1119/2005 has come to this Court with a submission that the learned single Judge was absolutely unjustified in holding that the appellant could not be considered higher in merits in comparison to the original petitioner/respondent no. 1 and others.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY the respondent no. 1/original petitioner is senior to the present appellant. When their cases for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Fisheries were under consideration a departmental promotion committee was required to consider their cases. The committee consisted of Mr. M. M. Hussain, Member, public Service Commission, Shri Prem Prakash Mathur, Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Shri V. L. Shitole, Director, Fisheries Department and Shri A. K. Jain, Under Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Fisheries. It is to be seen that the said committee met on 6. 7. 1996. It is also to be seen that an earlier committee consisting of Shri MM. Hussain, Member, Madhya Pradesh public Service Commissioner, Shri Sirjjiyas Minj, Secretary, Fisheries Department, shri V. L. Shitole, Director, Fisheries Department and Shri A. K. Jain, Under secretary of the Fisheries Department had recorded their proceedings. The said committee had observed that the original petitioner Shri D. K. Bapna would be placed as 'very good' while Shri Jitendra Singh and Shri K. D. Singh would be considered as 'good'. The committee also observed that case of Shri Harpal Singh sidhu could not be considered as his confidential reports were not made available. After sometime the departmental promotion committee was re-constituted and it met on 6. 7. 1996. In paragraph 3 the committee recorded in relation to the seniority and gradation list. However, in sub para 4 of paragraph 3 the committee referring to Rule 15 (3) of Madhya Pradesh Matsyaudhyog (Rajpatrit) Seva Bharti Niyam, 1987 observed that a person of exceptional merit and suitability could be given higher place in this list in comparison to the officers who were senior to him. The committee also observed that it had considered the confidential reports for the year 1989-90 to 1993-94 for a period of five years. They also observed in paragraph 6 that the committee was of the opinion that for purposes of promotion the requirements would be:

(3.) WHILE considering clause (5) they observed that all the persons who were directed to be promoted vide meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 22. 2. 1993 have been promoted. While preparing the select list the committee observed and graded the persons as follows :