Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. C.P. Chaurasia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2015
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
:: 1 ::
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV
Writ Petition No.21344/2012
Dr. Vyankatacharya Dwivedi & others
versus
State of M.P. & others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent-State.
Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the intervenor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.21416/2012
Dr. Aditya Pratap Singh & others
versus
State of M.P. & others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent-State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.299/2013
Dr. C.P. Chaurasia
versus
State of M.P. & others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, Govt. Adv. for State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.3236/2013
Dr. D.S. Pawar and another
versus
State of M.P. & others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, Govt. Adv. for State.
Shri Harish Agnihotri, counsel for respondent 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:: 2 ::
ORDER
(30.3.2015) These batch of writ petitions, at the instance of Senior Veterinary Surgeons in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh, are directed against order-dated 10.12.2012; whereby, private respondents have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director/Civil Surgeon (Veterinary Services)/Animal Breeding Programme Officers, questioning the criteria for promotion adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
2. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by M.P. Veterinary Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966 and that the promotions are governed by the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 read with Article 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India, known as Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'Rules of 2002') and as per Rule 4 read with Rule 6 thereof, the promotion from the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon (substantive post) to that of Deputy Director/Civil Surgeon (Veterinary Services), Animal Breeding Programme Officer, a Class I post is on the basis of "seniority subject to fitness".
3. That, Departmental Promotion Committee convened its meeting on 13.9.2012 to consider Assistant Veterinary Surgeon as on 1.4.2011 for the following vacancies -
Category Actual Anticipated
Vacancies Vacancies
:: 3 ::
General Category - 119 112 7
Scheduled Caste - 26 22 4
Scheduled Tribes - 35 35 NIL
4. The criteria adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee was -
7- inksUufr dh dlkSfV;ka rFkk lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds fu;e ^^e/;izn's k yksd lsok ¼inksUufr½ fu;e] 2002 ds lanHkZ esa oxhZdj.k & ¼v½ U;wure dlkSVh lfefr us fopkjk/khu inksUufr ds fy, fuEufyf[kr dlkSfV;ka r; dh & ¼1½ lafu"Bk lansg ls ijs gks ,oa lafu"Bk izekf.kr gks A ¼2½ o"kZ 2007 ls o"kZ 2011 rd ikWp o"kZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij lexz ewY;kadu fd;k tk,A lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad lh&3&18&2001&3&,d fnukad 11 twu 2002 dh df.Mdk 6 dh midafMdk 6 vuq:i tSlk iz'uk/khu frfFk ls 5 o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnu ugha gS rks fiNys o"kZ ds miyC/k xksiuh; izfrosnu ij lfefr us fopkj fd;kA ¼3½ lfefr us ;g ik;k fd foHkkx esa d+ ,oa d Js.kh ds i;kZIr mEehnokj gSa ,oa inksUufr izFke Js.kh esa gks jgh gSA vr% ;ksX; ,oa mfpr mEehnokj vk, blhfy, lkekU; Js.kh ds in ds fy, mi;qDrrk ds ekin.M ds fy, U;wure vad 13 fu/kkZfjr fd, x, fdUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy, mDrkuqlkj i;kZIr mEehnokj miyC/k u gksus ls dkj.k mi;qDrrk ds ekin.M dks f'kfFky djrs gq, 10 vad fu/kkZfjr fd, x,A ¼4½ fu;eksa ds fu;e 7 esa yksd lsod ds mi;qDrrk vFkok vuqi;qDrrk ds :i esa oxhZd`r djus dk mYys[k gSA lfefr us ;g /;ku j[kk fd fdlh vf/kdkjh dks flfoy lsok oxhZdj.k fu;e ds rgr nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gS rks mldk Hkh mi;qDrrk@vuqi;qDrrk fu/kkZj.k esa fopkj fd;k x;kA ¼5½ lfefr us inksUufr fu;e 2002 dh dafMdk 9 dh mi dafMdk 6 ds vuqlkj inksUufr lfefr }kjk fopkjk/khu vof/k :: 4 ::
ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds ewY;kaduksa ds vk/kkj ij vadksa dk fu/kkZj.k LohdkjdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kaduksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxkA ;fn lfefr xksiuh; izfrosnu esa izfrosnd vf/kdkjh rFkk leh{kd vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds ewY;kadu ls lger ugha gS rks og blds fy, vius dkj.k fyfic) djrs gq, ewY;kadu djsxh ijUrq lfefr Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vad esa dsoy ,d vad c<k ldsxh vFkok ?kVk ldsxhA dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk x;kA ¼c½ xksiuh; fjdkMZ dk lexz oxhZdj.k ¼1½ ;g oxhZdj.k lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds Kkiu Øekad lh&3&7@2002@3@1 fnukad 6 tqykbZ] 2002 ds dafMdk& 9 esa crk, x, vk/kkjksa ij fuEukuqlkj fd;k x;kA fjdkMZ dk oxhZdj.k oxhZdj.k vad mRd`"B d+ 4 cgqr vPNk d 3 vPNk [k 2 vkSlr x 1 ?kfV;k ?k 0 ¼2½ mDr in ij inksUufr ds QhMj in ij i'kq fpfdRlk lgk;d 'kY;K] i'kq fpfdRlk lsok,a esa fnukad 1-1-2012 dh fLFkfr esa vgZrk izkIr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke fopkj {ks= esa j[ks x;saA visf{kr la[;k esa vf/kdkjh inksUufr gsrq mi;qDr ik;s tkus ds mijkar 'ks"k ukeksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k A
5. That, on the basis of these criteria, the Departmental Promotion Committee enlisted 129 Assistant Veterinary Surgeon from Serial No.4 to 524 in the Gradation List within the zone of consideration.
6. Evidently, others like the petitioners, though senior, are :: 5 ::
declared ineligible as they are not found fulfilling the criteria 7(3), accordingly, superseded.
7. The procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in shortlisting only such Assistant Veterinary Surgeons/Senior Veterinary Surgeon, having A+ and A, ACR's is being questioned on the ground that the DPC by introducing the element of comparative assessment of merits has violated the norms of selection provided under Rule 4 read with Rule 6(7) of Rules of 2002. It is contended that since these Rules envisage that promotion from Class II to Class I posts is on the basis of seniority subject to fitness with rider contained in sub-
rule (7) of Rule 6, the promotion of juniors on the basis of criteria laid down vide 7(3) deserves to be set aside.
8. State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries, on their turn, however justify the criteria laid down by the DPC as incumbents and eligible persons were found more in number than the posts. It is contended that it is within the right of the DPC to have fixed minimum criteria to adjudge the merit even where the promotion is based on seniority subject to suitability.
9. Private respondents while adopting the stand taken by the State Government, raises an objection as to maintainability of the petitions as all the promotees are not impleaded. It is further contended that since the petitioners were not having A+ and A to their credit and juniors like respondents were fulfilling the criteria, petitioners' supersession cannot be faulted with. It is urged that the DPC being the best judge to ascertain :: 6 ::
the criteria for promotion and the promotion being not a right, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
10. Considered the rival submissions.
11. As regard to the contention that all the promotees being necessary parties, having not been impleaded, the petition cannot be entertained. It is observed that immediate juniors are impleaded as respondents in each of the petitions. It has been held in V.P. Shrivastava v. State of M.P (1996) 7 SCC 759 that -
"14. The conclusion of the Tribunal that non inclusion of the affected parties is fatal to the appellants case is also unsustainable in law. It is to be stated that the appellants do not challenge the so called ad-hoc appointments of the promotee respondents but they do challenge the position of the said ad-hoc promotee respondents over the appellants in the seniority list. In other words the very principle of 'determination of seniority' made by the State Government is under challenge and for such a case State is the necessary party who has been impleaded. It has been held by this Court in the case of G.M. South Central Rly. v A.V.R. Siddhanti (1974) SCC 335 -
"As regards the second objection, it is to be noted that the decision of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition contain administrative rules of general application, regulating absorption in permanent departments, fixation of seniority, pay etc. of the employees of the erstwhile Grain Shop departments. The Respondents-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a :: 7 ::
statutory rule regulating seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision of October 16, 1952 were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition."
...
16. Further in view of finding of the Tribunal that respondents 3 and 4 successfully safeguarded the interest of the promotees. The Tribunal erred in law in holding that non-inclusion of the affected parties is fatal to the proceeding. It has been held by this Court in the case of Prabodh Verma v State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 that -
"A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the principle of law laid down in V.P. Shrivastava (supra) and the fact that immediate juniors who are promoted are impleaded as respondents in each of these :: 8 ::
petitions, the objection as to maintainability of the petitions for non-impleading all the promotees is overruled.
13. As regard to contention that it is within the jurisdiction of the Departmental Promotion Committee to lay down the criteria, there can be no doubt as to proposition that suitability for promotion must be left to be decided by the DPC, but equally settled it is that the DPC must determine suitability according to the applicable rules (Please see : Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704 wherein it is held -
"11. Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefor. .."
14. It is also settled principle of law that when Rule provides for the criteria to be adhered to and the procedure to be followed, then it is incumbent that the exercise of power must be only in the mode provided by the statute (Please see :
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 789, wherein it is held that "where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden". Further, in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan AIR 1989 SC 582, wherein it is held -
26. These principles of ratification, apparently do :: 9 ::
not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions. The statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It is ab initio void and cannot be ratified.
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In the case at hand, evidently and undisputedly, the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 & 6 of Rules of 2002 are applicable for promotion from Class II to Class I posts. Rule 4 stipulates -
"4. Determination of basis for promotion.- (1) Promotion from class IV to higher pay scale of class IV, class IV to class III, class III to higher pay scale of class III, class III to class II, class II to higher pay scale of class II and class II to class I posts shall be made on the basis of "seniority subject to fitness".
(2) Promotion from class I to higher pay scale of class I posts shall be made on the basis of "merit- cum-seniority".
Provided that the Promotion from the post of sub- Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the Departments of Public Works, Water Resources, Public Health Engineering and also Panchayat and Rural Development shall be made on the basis of "merit- cum-seniority."
16. Whereas, Rule 6 lays down the procedure to be followed in case of promotion. Sub-rule (1), (4), (5), (6) and (7), which are relevant in the context, are extracted below -
"6. Promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness.-
(1) In such cases where the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, there shall be no zone of consideration for all :: 10 ::
categories.
...
(4) The meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be held every year. It shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion separately with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion to fill up the unfilled vacancies of the earlier year or years separately and prepare the select list for the relevant year accordingly. Thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion to fill up the existing and anticipated vacancies of the current year.
(5) The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the public servants for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall see the record with particular reference to the ACRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service.
(6) When one or more ACRs are not available for any reason for the relevant period, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the ACRs of the years preceding the period in question.
(7) For filling up the posts by this method, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the case of each public servants separately on the basis of his own merit , that is to say, that there shall be no need to make a comparative assessment of the merits of public servant. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the records of each public servant separately and :: 11 ::
shall categorize them as 'fit' or 'not fit'."
17. Thus, clear it is from these rules that in case of promotion from Class II to Class I post as, in the present case, the same is on the basis of 'seniority subject to suitability' and that there shall be no zone of consideration. And, that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the public servants from promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for five preceding years. And, that the filling up the posts by the method under Rule 6, the DPC shall consider the case of each public servants separately on the basis of his own merit that there shall be no need to make a comparative assessment of the merits of public servant.
18. Another Rule which needs mention at this stage to understand the difference in procedure to be followed in case of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and merit- cum-seniority is sub-rule (9) of Rule 7, which lays down the procedure to be adhered to in case of promotion on merit-cum- suitability. It stipulates -
7. Promotion on the basis of merit-cum- seniority.
...
(9) The Departmental Promotion/Screening Committee shall make a relative/comparative assessment of the merits of public servants who are within the zone of consideration and make an overall grading of the public servants merit on the basis of their service records and place them in the categories as "Outstanding", "Very-Good", "Good", "Average" and "Poor" as the case may be.
:: 12 ::
However, only those public servants who are graded as "Very-Good" an above will be included in the select list, by placing the public servants graded as "Outstanding" on top followed by those graded as "Very-Good", subject to availability of vacancies, with the public servants with the same grading maintaining their inter-se-seniority in the feeder cadre/part of the service/pay scales of post.
19. Thus, when compared with, the procedure laid down under Rule 7(9) aims at elimination by comparative assessment whereas, Rule 6(7) aims at inclusion of seniors without taking recourse to comparative assessment by adjudging their suitability.
20. What then would "seniority subject to suitability" mean ?
21. Observing that in the matter of formulation of a policy for promotion to a higher post, the two competing principles which are taken into account are inter-se seniority and comparative merit of employees who are eligible for promotion, their Lordships in B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (1998) 6 SCC 720 were pleased to hold -
18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made.
For assessing the minimum necessary merit the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on :: 13 ::
the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
22. Following decisions can also be taken note of on the aspect of promotion based on seniority-cum-merit.
(i) In Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank AIR 2010 SC 699, it is held -
10. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority, from among those who possess the minimum necessary merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'. What would offend the rule of seniority-cum-merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly hold that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, is not violative of the concept of promotion by seniority- cum-merit.
(ii) In Rupa Rani Rakshit v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank AIR 2010 SC 787, it is held -
"7. ... On the other hand, the Bank proceeded to assess their inter-se-merit with reference to four criteria (period of service, educational qualification, performance during three years, and interview) by allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6, 24 and 30 (out of a total 100 marks) and then :: 14 ::
proceeded to promote those who had secured the highest marks in the order of merit. Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules : (i) promoting candidates on merit-cum-seniority and not on seniority-cum-merit; and (ii) assessing inter- se merit, inter alia with reference to marks allocated to different educational qualifications. It cannot, therefore, be said that the promotions made on 20.11.1990 were on the basis of seniority- cum-merit. Though the period of service was also considered as one of the factors for assessment of comparative merit, the procedure adopted for promotion was merit-cum-seniority. The High Court was, therefore, justified in interfering with the promotions. The directions given by the High Court for fresh process of promotion were in consonance with the Rules and principles of seniority-cum- merit. The appeals, therefore, have no merit. ...
10. .... Whenever a person is promoted to a post without following the rules prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a person not regularly promoted to that post. Consequently, where promotions are governed by Rules, in computing the length of service, in the post to which an employee is promoted, it is not permissible to include the period of service rendered in pursuance of an illegal promotion which is subsequently set aside."
23. Thus, when promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum- merit, there is greater emphasis upon seniority even though the same is not the deciding factor. In Balbir Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab, (2013) 11 SCC 746, it is held -
"15. In view of the above, the law as regards this point can be summarised to the effect that, where a promotion is to be given on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit", such promotion will not automatically be granted on the basis of seniority :: 15 ::
alone. Efficiency of administration cannot be compromised with at any cost. Thus, in order to meet said requirements, all eligible candidates in the feeder cadre must be subject to a process of assessment to determine whether or not an individual in fact possesses the specified minimum necessary merit, and in the event that he does possess the same, his case must be considered giving due weightage to his seniority. Furthermore, the statutory authority must adopt a bonafide and reasonable method to determine the minimum necessary merit, as is required to be possessed by the eligible candidate."
24. In the context, reference can also be had of the decision in Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya (2010) 1 SCC 335 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold -
"11. It is also well settled that the principle of seniority-cum-merit, for promotion, is different from the principle of 'seniority' and principle of 'merit-cum-seniority'. Where promotion is on the basis of seniority alone, merit will not play any part at all. But where promotion is on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, promotion is not automatic with reference to seniority alone. Merit will also play a significant role. The standard method of seniority-cum-merit is to subject all the eligible candidates in the feeder grade (possessing the prescribed educational qualification and period of service) to a process of assessment of a specified minimum necessary merit and then promote the candidates who are found to possess the minimum necessary merit strictly in the order of seniority. The minimum merit necessary for the post may be assessed either by subjecting the candidates to a written examination or an interview or by assessment of their work performance during the previous years, or by a combination of either two or all the three of the aforesaid methods. There is :: 16 ::
no hard and fast rule as to how the minimum merit is to be ascertained. So long as the ultimate promotions are based on seniority, any process for ascertaining the minimum necessary merit, as a basic requirement, will not militate against the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
..
13. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority, from among those who possess the minimum necessary merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'. What would offend the rule of seniority-cum-merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly hold that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, is not violative of the concept of promotion by seniority-
cum-merit."
25. Keeping in mind the principle of law laid down as regard to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability/seniority- cum-merit, in the case at hand, the relevant rules adverted to i.e. Rule 4 and the procedure required to be adhered to as stipulated under Rule 6 of Rules of 2002, the fixing of bench mark A+ and A for adjudging the eligibility as observed earlier has led to elimination of such seniors who does not have these gradings. Thus, an element of merit over seniority has been :: 17 ::
introduced by the DPC. This is further established by sub- clause (5) of Clause 7 of the criteria laid down by DPC, which envisages -
¼5½ lfefr us inksUufr fu;e 2002 dh dafMdk 9 dh mi dafMdk 6 ds vuqlkj inksUufr lfefr }kjk fopkjk/khu vof/k ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds ewY;kaduksa ds vk/kkj ij vadksa dk fu/kkZj.k LohdkjdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kaduksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxkA ;fn lfefr xksiuh; izfrosnu esa izfrosnd vf/kdkjh rFkk leh{kd vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds ewY;kadu ls lger ugha gS rks og blds fy, vius dkj.k fyfic) djrs gq, ewY;kadu djsxh ijUrq lfefr Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fd, x, ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vad esa dsoy ,d vad c<k ldsxh vFkok ?kVk ldsxhA dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk x;kA
- which is in consonance with the procedure laid down under Rule 7(9) for promotion on merit-cum-suitability but is not in conformation with Rule 6 of Rules of 2002. Rather, the criteria laid down under sub-clause (3) and (5) of Clause 7 is antithesis to the basic rule of seniority subject to suitability as envisaged under Rule 4 read with Rule 6 of Rules of 2002.
26. Considered thus the procedure adhered to by the Departmental Promotion Committee by laying down the criteria introducing the element of merit having overriding effect on seniority cannot be given the stamp of approval and the non- promotion of seniors as compared to juniors on the basis of these criteria deserves reconsideration on the basis of above analysis by holding a review Departmental Promotion Committee, wherein if seniors are adjudged suitable, the juniors who were promoted on the basis of criteria found to be :: 18 ::
contrary to Rule 4 and 6 of Rules of 2002 will have to give way. For that, no separate notice need be issued to the juniors as their promotion were subject to final outcome.
27. Let the action be taken within three months from the date of communication of this order.
28. Petitions are allowed to the extent above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
29. Let a copy of this common order be retained in connected petitions.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod