CHURA MANI THAKUR Vs. HP HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and respondent No.2, alongwith one Tarun Mahajan, were posted as Judgment Writers/Personal Assistants in this Registry. All of them fell in the zone of choice for promotion to the post of Private Secretary in the year 2009. Promotion to the post of Private Secretary is made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. A Committee was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assessing the merit and making recommendation. The Committee recommended the name of respondent No.2 for promotion as Private Secretary, superseding the present petitioner, who was senior to her.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that even according to the procedure adopted by the Committee, he could not have been superseded, inasmuch as he had three "Very Good" and two "Good" Confidential Reports, during the past five years, while respondent No.2 had four "Very Good" and one "Good" Confidential Reports, during the same period, and the Committee, while devising the procedure, decided to award four marks for "Very Good" report and three marks for "Good" report and that as per the procedure, which is normally adopted after awarding marks for the five Confidential Reports, average marks are worked out and the average marks of the petitioner work out to be 3.6, while that of respondent No.2, 3.8 and after rounding off, both of them could be said to have scored the same marks, i.e. 4, and the petitioner being senior could not have been superseded.

(3.) Petitioner made a representation to the Registrar General. He was intimated, vide letter dated 14th May, 2009 Annexure P-6, that his representation had been rejected by the authorities.