HEM CHANDRA BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the year 2000, the writ petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. In addition, he was also holding the office of the Additional ChiefEngineer (C) temporarily. A select list was prepared on 13.9.2000 for promotion to the post of Additional ChiefEngineer. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 of that list dated 13.9.2000. The said select list dated 13.9.2000 was prepared on the basis of criteria adopted in the meeting held on 13.5.1994 where Secretaries of various technical Departments were present.

(2.) One Sri Bhabani Choudhury filed Writ Petition (C) No. 5756/2000 challenging the select list dated 13.9.2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 12.4.2001. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, quashed the select list dated 13.9.2000 for not having been prepared in accordance with Rule 13 of the Assam Engineering (P.W.D.) Service Rules, 1978 and directed the authorities to hold fresh selection.

(3.) In pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench, the select list dated 13.9.2000 (Annexure-B) was cancelled. Thereafter, the Secretaries of the Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Public Health Department and Flood Control Department in a meeting held on 14.2.2001 evolved and adopted new criteria for promotion. The criteria is annexed as Annexure-F to the writ petition. The selection process was initiated on 28.8.2001 for recommendation for filling up nine vacancies that arose in the year 2000. Eventually, the select list dated 1.9.2001 was published wherein the petitioner has been placed at serial No.9. Challenging his downgrading in the select list from serial No.2 to serial No.9, the petitioner filed the representation dated 1.9.2001 on the ground that the list is illegal since it was prepared on the basis of amended criteria. Petitioner's plea is that selection for the vacancies of the year 2000 has to be made on the basis of the criteria in force at that time and not on the basis of the subsequent policy evolved on 14.2.2001. Besides, the petitioner's claim is that even otherwise he was entitled to promotion to one of the nine vacant posts of Additional ChiefEngineer on the basis of his placement in the select list dated 1.9.2001. But the authorities concerned arbitrarily promoted persons below him from the said select list prepared in order of preference.