SOHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined respondent No. 2 as Development Officer on 27.3.1987. He was promoted as Assistant Area Manager in 1992 and, thereafter as Area Manager in the year 1997, which post was subsequently designated as Deputy Manager. In 2001, he was promoted as Manager (Marketing) and was further promoted to the post of Senior Manager (Marketing) in the year 2005. In the year 2008, he was promoted as Chief Manager (Marketing). The next promotion, which is available to the petitioner as per the applicable Rules, is that of Deputy General Manager (Marketing), (hereinafter referred to as "DGM") The respondent authorities initiated the process of adjudging the suitability of the candidates for the post of DGM in the month of October, 2012. Selection for the said post is made on the basis of merit, which is adjudged by giving separate marks on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports, qualification, experience and performance at the interview before the Departmental Promotion Committee. A panel of 18 candidates was to be prepared for promotion to the post DGM as per the anticipated vacancies till 1.6.2013 and the selected candidates were to be promoted as per this panel, as and when a vacancy arose. As the petitioner was eligible and qualified for being considered for the post of DGM, he was called to appear before the DPC for consideration for the post of DGM on 14.10.2012. As per the Seniority List, the petitioner's name figures at No. 32 and the candidates upto Sr.No. 55 in the said list were within the zone of consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared before the DPC on 14.10.2012. But he was not promoted. On enquiry, he was informed that out of recommended panel of 18 candidates for promotion to the post of DGM, 17 had already been given promotion, whereas, the case of the petitioner had been kept in a sealed cover due to communication received from the Vigilance Department dated 12.10.2012, wherein, it had been mentioned that a vigilance case is contemplated against the petitioner.

(3.) IT is contended that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, : (1991) 4 SCC 109 and the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) in the office memorandum dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure R -1), which have been reiterated by the office memorandum dated 25.10.2004 and the still subsequent memorandum dated 2.12.2012, sealed cover procedure can be adopted only in cases where on the date of the consideration of the case for promotion by the DPC the Government servant is under suspension or a charge -sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or prosecution for criminal charge is pending. It is urged that as on the relevant date of consideration of his case by the DPC, none of these three conditions existed, the action of the respondents in adopting the sealed cover procedure was illegal.