DR. SANKAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned G.A., Mr. T. Dutta Majumder for the State-respondents and learned counsel Mr. P. Dutta for the respondent No.6. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 have chosen to remain absent.

(2.) The petitioner is working as an Associate Professor under the Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Tripura and now posted at Netaji Subhas Mahavidhyalaya, Udaipur, Gomati. As per the recruitment rules, for the post of Principal, Government (General) Degree Colleges, under the Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Tripura, vide the recruitment rules of 2012 (a copy is annexed as Annexure P/1 to the writ petition), the petitioner was having with all educational and other qualifications including experience for promotion to the post of Principal. He was senior to private respondent Nos. 7 to 10 as per the seniority list published by the department. A DPC meeting consisting of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, in which respondent No.6 was the Chairman, was held on 24.10.2013 for consideration of promotion to the post of Principal and petitioner's name was in Sl. No.3 of the 17 candidates whose names were forwarded to the DPC for consideration. The DPC in its meeting held on 24.10.2013 did not recommend the petitioner for promotion with the observation ---

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by filing a joint counter affidavit, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was senior to that of the private respondents in the post of Associate Professor, yet, he was not promoted by the Govt. to the post of Principal of Govt. (General) Degree Colleges based on the recommendation of the DPC which found him as not suitable based on his ACR grading and service record. The DPC has considered the service record of the petitioner and others for the preceding 5(five) years and examined and cross-checked the ACR grading and found the petitioner was below the benchmark. As per the procedure of DPC, the benchmark was 'very good' and upon examination of the ACR grading of the petitioner from 2008 to 2013, the DPC did not find him 'very good' and as such he was not recommended by the DPC and that findings of the DPC was concurred by the TPSC and therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Principal. The entries in the ACR was not communicated since the grading was "good" only and good ACR is not considered as an adverse ACR and as such at that material time it was thought that only adverse entries in the ACR should be communicated to the person concerned and good ACR since not adverse was not communicated to him. The petitioner's case was considered by DPC but since he was not found suitable, the DPC could not recommend his name for promotion and therefore, he was not promoted to the post of Principal.