MOHAMMED AMIN Vs. ORISSA FOREST DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges his supersession to the promotional post of Junior Administrative Officer and prays for a direction from this Court for his promotion to the post of Head -Asst./Section Officer with retrospective effect from 12.8.1980 and for retaining his seniority all through.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is, he entered the service under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') in the year 1967. In due course he was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Assistant and placed at serial 2 in the cadre whereas opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 were placed below him. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 were promoted to the post of Section Officer/Head Assistant with effect from 12.8.1980, but the Committee did not recommend the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that his C.C.Rs. for the years 1977 to 1979 bore adverse entries. He was however promoted on 27.6.1981 i.e. 11 months after his supersession, but he was not given retrospective promotion from 12.8.1980, when his juniors were promoted and in the gradation list of the Section Officer, he was placed at serial 10 and opposite parties 2 to 6 were placed above him. Aggrieved he filed suit for the above reliefs. The lower Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court decreed the suit, directing the O.P. to reconsider the case of the petitioner, ignoring the entries for 1977 -79. Petitioner claims that the departmental rules prescribed promotion to higher post on the basis of seniority -cum -merit and not merit alone. He further claims, that denial of his promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer in 1985 was an act of arbitrariness and non -application of mind.

(3.) MR . Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that no doubt as on 11.8.1980 when the D.P.C. met there were adverse remarks for the year 1974 -76 and though the petitioner had moved to expunge the adverse entry, his application was not disposed of as on that date but the adverse remarks subsequently expunged in the year 1981 and then the said Departmental Promotion Committee took up his matter of promotion only eleven months thereafter and promoted him to the cadre of Section Officer. According to Mr. Misra thus there was no justification for the opposite parties to take into account the same entries in the year 1992 to judge his comparative suitability with opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. Secondly, it was urged that by virtue of the judgment of the Civil Court which the Corporation did not challenge in higher forum the adverse entries if any for the year 1977 -79 should have been considered as honest and therefore his further promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer should not have been denied on the pretext that the petitioner was not found comparatively more suitable than the other opposite parties. Lastly, it was urged that the criteria for promotion to such post under the prescribed rule of the Corporation was seniority -cum -merit and not merit alone. Therefore, according to settled position of law the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Officer as claimed by him, since at no point of time he was found to be unsuitable to hold the promotional post.