KAILASH LAL MATHUR Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions filed by Kailash Lal Mathur, as officer serving under respondents of 1 to 3, raise interconnected and interlinked questions of facts and law. Hence, they have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a Government of India Enterprise and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India and this Is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that one post of Manager Sales was available for promotion to the petitioner in the year 1977. A Departmental Promotion Committee (for shoit DPC) was scheduled to meet on 26.8.77. The case of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma, respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions, was General Manager of respondent No. 1. Shri B.D. Sharma was not happy with the petitioner and was inimically disposed of towards the petitioner. He was also closely associated with Shri J.C. Sanadhya. Shri B.D. Sharma with a view to oust the petitioner from consideration for the post of Manager deliberately proceeded on leave with the result that the DPC could not meet on 26.8.77. Had the DPC met on 26.8.77, the petitioner would have been selected for the said promotional post in as much as there was no other contestant in the field. However, due to aforesaid deliberate act of Shri B.D. Sharma, the DPC could not meet on 26.8.77 and eventually the DPC met on 15.9.81. It is the case of the petitioner that he had an unblemished career and he would have been selected but for the aforesaid malafids action on part of Shri B.D. Sharma. The case of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma got one adverse confidential report communicated to the petitioner for the year 1977 -78 with a view to harass the petitioner. Petitioner filed a representation also against this A.C.R. but the same was summarily rejected. The case of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner had very good record throughout, the ACRs. for the year 1973 -74 and 1974 -75, which had been recorded by Shri B.D. Sharma were removed by him Shri B.D. Sharma and new adverse A.C.Rs. were substituted, though they were not communicated to the petitioner. It was further pleaded that due to Mansuovering of Shri Sharma A.C.Rs. of the year 1976 -77 was also not available.