N B KANUNGO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition seeks to challenge the order of promotion of the respondents No. 3 to 6 to the posts of Assistant in the office of the Salt Commissioner and the petition arises in the following circumstances - THE petitioner was appointed as a Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Salt Commissioner by direct recruitment on July 5, 1951. He was confirmed in the aforesaid post by the order of the Salt Commissioner dated May 6, 1970 with effect from September 2, 1968. THE petitioner was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on September 5, 1970. According to the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks as on June I, 1969 the petitioner was senior to the respondents No. 3 to 6 in the aforesaid cadre. THE respondents No. 3 and 4 were promoted as Assistant by the order of the Salt Commissioner dated December 26, 1970 with effect from December 24, 1970 on probation for a period of two years. THE respondent No. 5 was also promoted as Assistant on ad-hoc basis by the very same order dated December 26, 1970. By a later order dated May 26, 1971 the respondent No. 6 was also promoted as Assistant on "purely temporary and ad-hoc basis". THE grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner was senior in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks to the respondents No. 3 to 6, yet they have been promoted to the higher post of Assistant but the petitioner was not so promoted. THE petitioner has also stated that there were adverse remarks in the service records of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the years 1967 to 1969 and that the service record of the petitioner was "better" than that of all the four respondents No. 3 to 6 or at any rate it was "in no manner inferior" to them.

(2.) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply have stated that the post of Assistant in the Salt Commissioner's office was classified as a "non-selection post" and that the promotion of respondents No. 3 to 6 to the post of Assistant was made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, on the recommendation of a Departmental Pro motion Committee. It has been stated by the aforesaid two respondents that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and his service record and the confidential rolls were examined along with those of the respondents No. 3 to 6, but the Departmental Promotion Committee did not then consider the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Assistant, while the other respondents No 3 to 6 were found fit and were as such promoted to the post of Assistant. THE respondents have also stated that the petitioner was also selected by a subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Assistant and that he has also thereafter been promoted to the post of Assistant and that in this manner no injustice has been done to the petitioner.

(3.) IN Durgadass's case (l) the Court found that there was no understandable method adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and that the Committee categorised the candidates according to its own notions, which could not be justified on any reasonable basis. IN these circumstances it was held that the selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee was arbitrary.