SITARAM SINGH Vs. MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application has been filed seek interference of this Court with the order of promotion dated 22/8/2000 by which order the respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Me.S.E.B.).

(2.) The details of the factual matrix on which the instant writ petition has been founded do not qualify for an elaborate recital in view of the virtually undisputed position that in the feeder post, namely the post of Executive Engineer, the writ petitioner was senior to respondent No. 3 by as many as 12 years. The said undisputed position on facts is borne out by the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition which would go to show that the writ petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer under MeSEB on 9/7/1984 whereas the respondent No. 3 was so promoted on 1/6/1996.

(3.) The pleadings of the writ petitioner in support of the challenge made has undergone transformation at different stages. At the initial stage, the grievance of the writ petitioner was that there was no reasonable cause or basis for the impugned supersession inasmuch as his record of service was consistently good and there were no adverse remarks/reports against him. The said position, according to the petitioner, entitled him to promotion. After receipt of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board averring that the impugned promotion was so made on the criteria of merit-cum-seniority by a regularly constituted D.P.C. in which proceeding the case of the writ petitioner was also considered, the writ petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit had tried to plead a somewhat different case. In the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner contended that the promotion impugned in the present proceeding was required to be made by adhering to the provision of Assam State Electricity Board Engineering Service Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Regulations) and not on the basis of the Meghalaya State Electricity Service Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Regulations). According to the petitioner, the criteria of promotion under the 1973 Regulations was seniority with due regard to merit and the period of qualifying service in the feeder post, namely the post of Executive Engineer was 5 years. The impugned promotion of the respondent No. 3 was so made by adopting the criteria of merit. With due regard to seniority and the truncated period of qualifying service of 3 years as prescribed under the 1996 Regulations. A further transformation of the case of the petitioner is noticed in the course of oral arguments advanced. As the additional questions raised were mixed questions of law and fact, this Court granted opportunity to the respondent Board to file an additional affidavit which was accordingly filed on 13/12/2001.