MICHI TARA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACKGROUND FACTS While the writ petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein were serving as Executive Engineer, in the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'the DPC') took place, on 30.01.2008, for consideration of promotion of Executive Engineer(s) to the posts of Superintending Engineer. In this meeting, the cases of not only the writ petitioner but also of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were considered. Under the relevant recruitment rules, five years of regular service, in the grade of Executive Engineer, is a pre-condition for making an Executive Engineer eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. There is no dispute that on the date, when the meeting of the DPC was held, the writ petitioner as well as the said two private respondents were eligible for consideration for promotion to the post(s) of Superintending Engineer, both the private respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being, however, junior to the writ petitioner. Under the relevant recruitment rules, the post of Superintendent Engineer is a promotional post and the selection for promotion is based on the criterion of merit-cum-seniority. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner was superseded on the ground that the petitioner had adverse remarks in his ACRs (Annual Confidential Report), the remarks being to the effect that the petitioner was unfit for promotion, but the remarks were not communicated to the petitioner until after the DPC held its said meeting and recommended the names of the said two private respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer.

(2.) Aggrieved by his supersession, the petitioner came with the present writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get, inter alia, the proceedings of the said DPC, dated 30.01.2008, set aside and quashed, his grievance being thus : The adverse remarks, in his ACRs, which had become the basis of his supersession, had not been communicated to him till the DPC met on 30.01.2008 and that the adverse remarks were communicated to him as late as on 10.02.2008. The petitioner's pleaded case, in short, is that the petitioner had been informed about the adverse entries, in his ACRs, only on 10.02.2008 and, hence, the DPC, which was held without communicating to the petitioner the adverse remarks, in his ACRs, was wholly illegal inasmuch as he did not get any opportunity of showing cause against the correctness, justifiability, and/or legality of the entries, which came to adversely affect his service career.

(3.) The State respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the respondents have averred that the adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner on 28.01.2008. In support of the averments, the respondents have also annexed, to their affidavit-in-opposition, an endorsement, made by the Superintending Engineer concerned, to the effect that the communication, as regard the adverse entries, had been made to the petitioner on 28.01.2008.