LALTHANKIMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1-5 and Mr. J.C. Lalnun-sanga, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. No one appears for the respondent No.7.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the promotion of his junior i.e. the respondent No.7 from the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) to the post of District Transport Officer (DTO) (Group B post), has prayed for setting aside the promotion of the respondent No.7 and prayed for a direction to be issued promoting the petitioner to the post of DTO.

(3.) The petitioner's case in brief is that for the purpose of promotion to the vacant post of DTO, the ACR of 5 years of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 and one C. Lalawmpuia were considered by the respondent No. 6, MPSC. However, as the petitioner had not attained the bench mark of 'Very Good' for promotion to the group 'A' post of DTO, the petitioner was not selected and the respondent No. 7 who attained the bench mark of 'Very Good', was recommended for promotion by the MPSC vide the Meeting Minutes of the MPSC dtd. 22/3/2017. Consequently, the respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of DTO vide notification dtd. 4/4/2017.