SACHIDANANDA MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORN of details the simple facts are that the petitioner and opposite parties 4 and 5 were confirmed as District Organisers, National Savings, in the Orissa region. In the gradation list the petitioner was senior to both opposite parties 4 and 5. The petitioner's case is that the selecting authority for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Director is the Departmental Promotion Committee, and that his case was screened out by the Regional Director, National Savings, Orissa, Cuttack and was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Though the petitioner has no right to promotion, he has the right to be considered for promotion and as his case was not considered by the proper authority, the order not promoting him and promoting others causes discrimination and must be quashed. Opposite Parties 4 and 5 are ex parte. Counter has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3. They take the stand that the petitioner's case was considered along with others and as he has no right to promotion the impugned order promoting opposite parties 4 and 5 to the exclusion of the petitioner who is senior to them is not without jurisdiction and cannot be quashed.

(2.) THE Ministry of Home Affiairs in its letter No. O.M.N. 1/4/55-RPS dated 16/5/1957 laid down the principles for promotion to selection posts. It was made clear therein that it is the Departmental Promotion Committee which would make the selection for promotion. Opposite party No. 2 issued a letter on 28/11/1964 to the Regional Director, National Savings, Orissa, Cuttack that the Regional Director himself in the first instance would examine the cases of persons fit for promotion and send only those names which he considers to be fit. He also made the classification as prescribed in that letter. THEre is no denial of the assertion of the petitioner that his name was not sent by opposite party No. 3 to the Departmental Promotion Committee. In fact Annexure-III dated 11-12-1964 fully supports the contention of the petitioner that his name was screened out and excluded. THE result, therefore, was that the case of the petitioner did not come up for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is well settled that it is only the authority vested with the power and jurisdiction who would make the selection. If the selection is made by any other authority, then that would be without jurisdiction and void. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the screening out of the petitioner so as to deprive him of his right to be considered for promotion by the concerned authority was without jurisdiction. THE entire selection must accordingly be quashed as it has resulted in discrimination under Article 16 of the Constitution.