NENKAR LAILYANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein came to this Court with a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to be issued to the respondents to consider his case for promotion properly to grant him seniority with effect from 22. 02. 1996, the petitioner's case being, in brief, thus: The petitioner has been serving as an Assistant Director of Industries on the strength of the departmental order made on 25. 04. 1988. According to the relevant Recruitment Rules for promotion from the cadre of Assistant Director of Industries to the cadre of Deputy Director of Industries (in short, "ddi"), an Assistant Director of Industries (in short "adi") requires 5 (five) years of continuous service in the cadre of Assistant Director of Industries. No Departmental Promotion Committee (in short "dpc") was held after the petitioner had become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of DDI and that such a DPC was held only on 14. 03. 2001. Though the petitioner's case was sent for consideration to the DPC for promotion to the cadre of DDI, the DPC chose not to recommend the petitioner's case for promotion. While so declining to recommend the petitioner's case for promotion, the DPC recommended one Shri S. Tabin for promotion to the post of DDI, though S. Tabin was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Director of Industries. Representations made by the writ petitioner against his supersession failed to evoke any prompt response from the State respondents concerned and the petitioner was, eventually, informed that his case had not been recommended by the DPC due to adverse comments found in his ACRs. The petitioner's case was, however, once again, considered by the DPC and pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC for petitioner's promotion to the cadre of DDI, the petitioner received his promotion in November, 2002.

(2.) THE State Government resisted the writ petition, their case being, briefly stated, thus: The DPC did not recommend the petitioner's case for promotion on the ground of not only adverse ACRs, but also on the ground of his case having not been cleared by the Vigilance due to pending departmental proceedings. However, after completion of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner's case was, again, considered by the DPC and, having been recommended for promotion by the DPC, the promotion was granted to the petitioner with effect from 24. 09. 2002.

(3.) FOLLOWING the dismissal of his review petition, the petitioner has, now, preferred this appeal.