CHAMPA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was promoted to the post of Private Secretary on 3.4.1999. The post of Private Secretary is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Private Secretary. The appointment/promotion to the post of Senior Private Secretary is governed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 19.11.2001. According to Rule 11, the post is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Private Secretaries who possess five years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc rendered upto 31.3.1998. Petitioner was fully eligible and qualified for being considered for the post of Senior Private Secretary. The Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 23.12.2010. However, the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee though her overall grading was 'very good'. Petitioner has been assigned two 'outstanding' grading and three 'very good' and her overall grading as per recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee was 'very good'. Respondent No. 3, who is junior to the petitioner, was also ranked 'very good'. However, he has only earned one 'outstanding' grading. The Departmental Promotion Committee was also convened on 29.9.2011 for making promotion to the post of Senior Private Secretary. The Departmental Promotion Committee was chaired by the Chief Secretary. However, surprisingly, the petitioner's overall grading though remained Very good' but respondent No. 3 was assessed 'outstanding' on the basis of which his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Senior Private Secretary. Petitioner made representation on 16.11.2011 the manner in which the overall grading of the petitioner has been lowered. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on 30.11.2011. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that the action of Departmental Promotion Committee to downgrade the overall grading of the petitioner and upgrading of respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjustifiable, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then argued that both the Departmental Promotion Committees convened on 23.12.2010 and 29.9.2011 were presided over by the Chief Secretary.

(2.) Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. According to him, the Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis other candidates strictly as per Chapter 16.25 (g) (iii) of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-I.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 though has been served but there is no representation on his behalf.