P K HANDIQUE Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, filed in the month of November, 2006, the petitioner is assailing the notifications of the Government of Meghalaya, being No. PHE. 155/82/pt/103 Shillong, dated 10th July 1995 for promoting respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to the posts of Assistant Engineer/sub-Divisional Officers and notification issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, P. H. E, Department being No. 453/96/43 dated 2nd July, 1999 for determining the final seniority list of the officers under the P. H. E. Department. It is apparent on the face of the present writ petition that the writ petition is filed with an inordinate delay of 11 years and some months so far as the impugned notification dated 10th July 1995 is concerned and inordinate delay of 7 years so far as the second notification dated 2nd July 1999 is concerned.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Kynjing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned Senior GA appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Mr. Thankhiew, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 10 to 32.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that private respondent Nos. 6 to 9, who were juniors to the petitioner in the feeder post of Sub Engineer Grade-I, superseded the petitioner by promoting them to the post of Assistant Engineer on the recommendation of DPC, vide impugned notification No. PHE. 155/82/pt/103, Shillong dated 10th July, 1995. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner was informed of the adverse remarks on his ACR for the period from 1. 1. 1984 to 31. 12. 1993 and cautioned to be careful in near future vide letter of the Chief Engineer, PHE, Meghalaya, Shillong being No. CE/phe/616/82/90 Shillong dated 14th June 1995. The petitioner, on receipt of the said letter of the Chief Engineer dated 14. 6. 1995, submitted a representation/appeal to the Chief Engineer, HPE, Meghalaya dated 15. 7. 1995 expressing his dissatisfaction over the adverse remarks on his ACR. The adverse remarks on the ACR must not be used, before giving a chance of explanation or/notice to the petitioner, by the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Because of the undue delay in informing the adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner vide the said letter of the Chief Engineer dated 14. 6. 1995, the petitioner had been superseded by the private respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer vide impugned notification dated 10. 7. 1995. In the present writ petition the petitioner is not impugning the said letter of the Chief Engineer dated 14. 6. 1995 by seeking the prayer for quashing the same.