STATE OF ASSAM Vs. PRADYUT KUMAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 14.12.2007 allowing the writ petitions aforementioned, thus sustaining the assailment to the moderation of the gradings of the writ petitioners in their ACRs with the consequential direction to grant promotion to them to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Pubic Works Department of the State on a reassessment of their cases in the light of the directions contained therein. Whereas, the State of Assam in the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the 'Department') has impugned this decision in Writ Appeal Nos. 41/2008, 42/2008, 43/2008 and 63/2008, some of the candidates already recommended by the Selection Committee for such promotion (also impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions), have taken up the cudgel in Writ Appeal Nos. 51/2008, 52/2008, 53/2008 and 55/2008 against the same decision.

(2.) WE have heard Mr AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Saikia, Advocate for the State of Assam, Mr P.K. Goswami, and Mr. DKMishra, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. J. Roy, Advocate for the writ petitioners (corresponding respondents in the appeals) as well as Mr. AK Goswami, Senior Advocate, Mr. UK Nair and Mr. U. Raj Saikia, Advocates for the other appellants.

(3.) THE pleaded case of the writ petitioners in essence, is that, they are all presently holding the rank of Executive Engineer in the Department and have an over all service tenure ranging between 22 to 25 years. They had all being promoted to this rank in the year 2002 and are eligible to be considered for elevation to the next higher rank of Superintending Engineer in terms of the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. They have averred that, by the Notification No. CON. 5/2003/50 dated 28.04.2003 issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, PWD, certain guidelines have been prescribed for administering the promotions upto the rank of Superintending Engineer and above. Though the recital in the notification claims that it had been issued pursuant to the judgment and order dated 07.04.2003 passed in WP(C) No 6274/2002 and WP(C) No. 6606/2002, the writ petitioner in WP(C)No. 246/2007 contends that the same is wholly incompatible with the letter and spirit of the said verdict. Be that as it may, they are one in insisting that their cases were not considered for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer in terms of the Rules. According to them, the relevant Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to for short as 'ACR') amongst other records and documents pertaining to their service necessary to be assessed by the Selection Committee under the Rules for the selection involved were for the years 2000 -2001 to 2004 -2005. They have asserted that they had all been graded 'Outstanding' in their ACRs for the periods 2000 -2001, 2001 -2002 and 2002 -2003 in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Services (Confidential Roll) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACR Rules') which ordain the procedure for writing the confidential report, review and acceptance thereof as well as consequent grading of the officer concerned. They have persistently maintained that this grading was in correct appreciation of their consistent, meritorious performance in the strategic assignments of the department with exemplary zeal and dexterity. However, for extraneous and non germane considerations they were down graded for the subsequent years i.e. 2003 -2004 and 2004 -2005 to deliberately deny them the promotion to the higher rank of Superintending Engineer with a view to favour those less deserving, but propitious to the authorities in power. They have contended that even on the application of the guidelines in the notification dated 28.04.2003 and the marking scheme contemplated therein, they, on a consideration of their performance and seniority in service were entitled to make the grade in terms thereof for promotion as Superintending Engineer. However, on a manipulation of their ACRs for the years 2004 and 2005, they were deliberately down graded to miss the desired level for denying them the promotion. Referring to the notification dated 28.4.2003 the petitioners have contended that the same in the grade of Graduate Engineer contemplated two categories of officers, (1) Class -A with a score of '21.96 and above' computable on the basis of the marks awarded for the specified gradings in the ACR and (2) Class -B with the score '13.96 to below 21.96' on the same determinants. According to them, they were purposely denied Class -A by lowering their gradings for the year 2004 and 2005 to 'Good' by consciously overlooking their performance on impertinent considerations. They have in particular, imputed arbitrariness and mala fide against the then Secretary of the Department for having, by disregarding the records, interfered with the reports of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, who they claimed had graded them 'Outstanding' also for these years. They have asserted that the Secretary of the Department, though the Accepting Authority, had no personal knowledge or idea of their functional excellence and further, being the Chairman of the Selection Committee had no power to modify their ACRs to their detriment. Besides alleging want of fairness in State action for not being afforded an opportunity to represent against the proposed down grading of their ACRs, the petitioners have impeached the selection process as violative of both the Rules and have prayed for an appropriate writ to interfere with the impugned decision of the Secretary of the Department impoverishing their ACRs annul the recommendations of the Selection Board and the impugned selection as well and to further direct the respondents to hold a fresh selection for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer by placing their cases before the Selection Board/Committee for consideration therefor after taking into account the gradings awarded by the Reporting and the Reviewing officers.