L B SAILO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is field by Dr. L.B. Sailo, who is presently holding the post of Joint Director in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department Mizoram, Aizawl, challenging the promotion of Respondent No. 5, Dr. C. Sangnghina by Office Memo No. A. 22012/50/94-P&AR(CSW) dated 9.1.2002 respondent No. 5 was promoted from the post of Joint Director to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department Mizoram in pursuance of the recommendation made by the departmental promotion committee. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director vide order dated 26.2.1996 whereas the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Joint Director in the same department on 1.7.1996. Thus apparently the respondent No. 5 was junior to the petitioner in the grade of Joint Director in the department. For the next promotion in the department from the post of Joint Director to the post of Director, under the eligibility criteria, 5 years of service is requisite condition. On 26.2.2001 the petitioner completed five years of service in the post of Joint Director whereas on 1.7.2001 the respondent No. 5 completed his five years of service in the post of Joint Director. At the relevant time the post of the Director was to become vacant on superannuation of the incumbent namely, Dr. C. Lianmawia, who was to retire on 31.1.2001. However, a Government order has been issued extending his service for further period of six months. By virtue of that order the incumbent holding the post of Director in the department was to retire on 31.7.2001. The further extension given by the Government to him for four months having been stayed by the High Court, the incumbent holding the post of Director was in fact to retire on 31.7.2001 and in fact the post has become vacant on the extended period on 31.7.2001. Thus, the post of Director has become available from 1.8.2001. However, the departmental promotion committee has considered the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in theDPC meetings held on 3.1.2002 and recommended the promotion to the respondent No. 5. In pursuance thereof the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Director by order dated 9.1.2002.

(2.) The petitioner has field the present writ petition challenging the order of promotion of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the memorandum issued by the State Government dated 3.9.1998, 28.3.2001, 5.10.2001 and 8.10.2001 have not been properly given effect to and the ACR's which are not required to be considered by the departmental promotion committee while considering the case of the petitioner and the respondent, namely the ACRs of the year 2000-2001 have been wrongly considered and respondent No. 5 has been given promotion overlooking the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Joint Director. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ACR's which ought to have been taken for consideration by the departmental promotion committee for consideration, under the aforesaid memo issued by the State Government are for the year 1995- 1996 to 1999-2000 whereas the ACR have been taken into consideration for the year 1996-1997 upto 2000-2001 and thereby an advantage has been given to the respondent No. 5 and he has been promoted to the higher post overlooking the seniority claim of petitioner.

(3.) To appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be appropriate to take note of the ACR entry of the petitioner and the respondent for the year; 1996-2001 and office memorandum which reads as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_557_GAULR1_2005Html1.htm</FRM> Various office memoranda were issued by the State Government from time to time which are to be given effect to while considering the case of the officers for promotion. The first office memorandum in point of time is dated 3.9.1998 wherein in para 3.5(ii) it is stated as follows :