Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1831/2012 on 31 October, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/42
GAHC010120822012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No. 1831/2012
1. Shri Nisavilhu Hieme
Assistant Registrar,
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
2. Shri Kuoliebeizo
Senior Administrative Assistant/UDA
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
3. Shri N. Mhao Kikon
Senior Administration Assistant/UDA
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
4. Smti. Tammila Zimik
Senior Administrative Assistant/UDA
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
5. Smti. Canaay Jajo
Senior Administrative Assistant/UDA
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
6. Smti. Maureen Murry
Senior Administrative Assistant/UDA
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
Page No. 2/42
..................Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Gauhati High Court
Represented by the Registrar General,
Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, Assam.
2. The Registrar
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench
Kohima, Nagaland.
3. Shri K. Adani Loli
Deputy Registrar
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
4. Shri Imsuyanger
Superintendent,
Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench,
Kohima, Nagaland.
5. The State of Nagaland
Represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Nagaland, Nagaland, Kohima.
...............Respondents
WITH WP(C) No. 2031/2012
1. Lolenmakla Senior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
2. Renpuia Humtsoe Senior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
Page No. 3/423. Jeet Bahadur Sunar Senior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
4. Ayimpongla Junior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
5. Pfuchupe Koza Junior Administrative Assistant, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
6. Ajen Joshua Longkumer Junior Administrative Assistant, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench Kohima, Nagaland.
7. Tsiisiethsii Poji Junior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland
8. Atula Jatila Junior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland
9. Khekishe Sumi Junior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland ..................Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Gauhati High Court Represented by the Registrar General, Page No. 4/42 Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, Assam.
2. The Registrar Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench Kohima, Nagaland.
3. Shri Arnon Ezung Senior Administrative Assistant Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
4. The State of Nagaland, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Nagaland, Kohima.
...............Respondents Advocates :
For the petitioners : Mr. P. Khataniar, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. H. K. Das, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court
- Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.[C] no.
1831/2012
and W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012;
Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate,
Ms. B. Das, Advocate
- Respondent no. 3 in W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012.
Mr. D. Nath, Advocate,
- Respondent no. 3 in W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012.
Date of Hearing : 09.08.2022
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The common subject-matter in both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 Page No. 5/42 and W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is promotion from posts in the feeder cadres to posts in the next higher cadres in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
2. W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 : Facts of the case :- A total of 6 [six] petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The petitioners are regular employees in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland. The petitioners were appointed during the period from 1977 to 1999. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner no. 1 was working as Assistant Registrar whereas the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 were serving as Senior Administrative Assistants [SAA]. It has been stated that the seniority lists of the employees in the Kohima Bench were published by the respondent authorities from time to time. The last of such seniority lists [provisional], prior to the institution of the writ petition, was published on 09.12.2010 showing the inter se seniority positions of the employees, as on 30.11.2010.
2.1. In the said seniority list published on 09.12.2010, the seniority positions of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 in the post of Assistant Registrar were shown as under :-
Table-I Post - Assistant Registrar Date of initial appointment Date of promotion to Assistant Registrar 1 Petitioner no. 1 20.09.1977 15.06.2007 2 Respondent no. 3 02.09.1987 15.06.2007 2.2. In the same seniority list, the seniority positions of the petitioner nos. 2 - 6 and the respondent no. 4 in the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA], earlier known as Upper Division Assistant [UDA], were shown as under :-
Table-II Post - Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]/UDA Date of initial appointment Date of promotion to SAA 1 Petitioner no. 2 02.05.1987 12.07.1999 2 Respondent no. 4 11.09.1992 09.07.1999 Page No. 6/42 3 Petitioner no. 3 12.09.1992 09.07.1999 4 Petitioner no. 4 14.11.1992 09.07.1999 5 Petitioner no. 5 17.03.1994 15.06.2007 6 Petitioner no. 6 09.08.1999 15.06.2007 2.3. A Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] consisting of two members held a Meeting on 02.11.2010 in order to recommend names of the candidates for filling up a number of vacant posts and also the resultant vacancies at various levels in the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, by promotion. As per the Note of the Registrar, Kohima Bench dated 14.07.2010, one post of Joint Registrar, one post of Superintendant and three posts of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] were available to be filled up. The DPC was also requested to consider candidates for filling up the resultant vacancies in the event of filling up the above vacant posts by appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible employees of the Kohima Bench as well as one newly created post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]. The DPC considered the relevant Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] and other documents of the eligible employees, as placed by the Registrar of the Kohima Bench for filling up of the vacant posts, the resultant vacancies thereof and the newly created post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA].
2.4. For the resultant vacant post of Deputy Registrar, the DPC considered the candidatures of the then two Assistant Registrars serving in the Kohima Bench, that is, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3. For the purpose of promotion, the DPC considered the ACRs and other documents of those two candidates for the years from 2006 to 2009 and found that both of them were appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar on the same date, 15.06.2007. Upon consideration and comparison of their inter se merits, the respondent no. 3 was found more meritorious.
2.5. For filling up of the vacant post of Superintendant, the DPC considered and examined the ACRs and other documents of the eligible employees in the feeder cadre, more particularly, the petitioner no. 3 and the respondent no. 4. The DPC found that both of them - the petitioner no. 3 & the respondent no. 4 - were appointed to the Page No. 7/42 post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] on 09.07.1999 and they were found more meritorious than the other employees in the zone of consideration. After having considered the respective date of birth of the above-referred two employees, the DPC recommended the name of the respondent no. 4 for appointment to the post of Superintendant by promotion as he was found senior in age to the petitioner no. 3.
2.6. The above recommendations of the DPC were approved on 29.11.2010 and thereafter, the same were forwarded by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 vide a letter bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5949/Estt. dated 03.12.2010. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012, assailment is made to two notifications bearing no.
HC.V-123/09/5970/Estt. and no. HC.V-123/09/6006/Estt., both dated 03.12.2010, whereby, the respondent no. 3 [Sri K. Adani Loli] and the respondent no. 4 [Sri Imsuyanger] were promoted and appointed to the posts of Deputy Registrar, Kohima Bench and Superintendent, Kohima Bench respectively.
3. The petitioners have raised a grievance to the effect that there were non- communication of gradings made in their Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] by the respondent authorities. Subsequently, recommendations were made by another Special Review Departmental Promotion Committee ['Special Review DPC', for short] on 05.11.2011 and thereafter, a letter dated 15.11.2011 was issued, whereby, the name of the respondent no. 3 for the post of Deputy Registrar and the name of respondent no. 4 for the post of Superintendent were again recommended.
3.1. The petitioners have also laid challenge to the recommendations made in the Minutes of the Special Review DPC dated 05.11.2011. Assailment is also made to the letter no. HC.V-123/09[pt.]/4574/Estt. dated 15.11.2011 of the respondent no. 2 whereby it was inter alia intimated that in terms of the Resolution taken by the Special Review DPC in its Meeting held on 17.09.2011, the respondent no. 3 [Sri K. Adani Loli] and the respondent no. 4 [Sri Imsuyanger] had once again been recommended for promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrar and Superintendent respectively and request was made to issue necessary appointment orders to those employees in Page No. 8/42 supersession of the earlier orders.
4. W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 : Facts of the case :- 9 [nine] nos. of petitioners have joined together to prefer the writ petition. The petitioners are regular employees in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland. The petitioners were appointed during the period from 1999 to 2008. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were serving as Senior Administrative Assistants [SAA] while the petitioner nos. 4 to 9 were serving as Junior Administrative Assistants [JAA]. It has been stated that the seniority lists of the employees were published by the respondent authorities from time to time. The last of such provisional seniority lists, prior to the institution of the writ petition, was published on 09.12.2010 showing the inter se seniority positions of the employees, as on 30.11.2010.
4.1. In the said seniority list published on 09.12.2010, the seniority positions of the petitioner nos. 1 - 9 and the respondent no. 3 were shown as under :-
Table-III Sl. Post - Junior Administrative Assistant [JAA]/LDA Date of initial appointment as LDA 1 Petitioner no. 1 10.08.1999 2 Petitioner no. 2 10.08.1999 3 Petitioner no. 3 09.08.1999 4 Petitioner no. 4 09.08.1999 5 Petitioner no. 5 13.10.2000 6 Petitioner no. 6 16.10.2000 7 Respondent no. 3 06.12.2000 8 Petitioner no. 7 24.07.2008 9 Petitioner no. 8 24.07.2008 10 Petitioner no. 9 24.07.2008 4.2. The Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] in its Meeting held on 02.11.2010 considered the bio-datas, the Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] of 10 nos. of Junior Administrative Assistants [JAAs] for the years from 2005 to 2009, their dates of birth, seniority positions and other documents placed before it. After such Page No. 9/42 consideration, the DPC recommended the names of four employees with the respondent no. 3 at serial no. 1 in order of merit followed by the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 for filling up of 4 [four] nos. of vacancies in the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA].
5. In this writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, the petitioners have raised the same grievance to the effect that there were non-communication of gradings made in their Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] by the respondent authorities. By referring to the constitution of the Special Review DPC, it has been stated that recommendations were made by the Special Review DPC on 05.11.2011 and thereafter, the letter dated 15.11.2011 was issued whereby the name of the respondent no. 3 was recommended for the post of SAA along with the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 by placing the name of the respondent no. 3 at serial no. 1 in order of merit in the list.
5.1. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, the order of promotion made vide an order dated 23.11.2011 in favour of the respondent no. 3 [Sri Arnon Ezung] to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] along with the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 4 on the recommendations made by the Special Review DPC on 17.09.2011 has been assailed. Assailment is also made to the letter no. HC.V-123/09[pt.]/4574/Estt. dated 15.11.2011 of the respondent no. 2 whereby it was inter alia intimated that in terms of the Resolution taken by the Special Review DPC in its Meeting held on 17.09.2011, the respondent no. 3 [Sri Arnon Ezung] had once again been recommended for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] at serial no. 1 in terms of merit followed by the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 4 and request was made to issue necessary appointment orders to those employees in supersession of the earlier orders.
6. W.P.[C] no. 1831/2021 & W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 :- Thus, in sum and substance, by the two writ petitions, challenges have been made to the recommendations made by the DPC / Special Review DPC for promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrar, Page No. 10/42 Superintendent and Senior Administrative Assistants [SAAs] respectively as per the resolutions recorded in the Minutes of the Meetings, held on 02.11.2010, 17.09.2011 and 05.11.2011 respectively and the consequential orders of promotion. As the issues involved and the sequence of events in both the writ petitions had proceeded simultaneously and are inter-related, both the writ petitions are taken upon together at the request of the learned counsel for the parties made in concert.
7. Heard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court [GHC] for the common respondent nos. 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions; Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012.
8. Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions has submitted that right from the period immediately after the recommendations made by the DPC in its Meeting dated 02.11.2010 to till 30.09.2011 which was immediately after the Meeting of the Special Review DPC held on 17.09.2011, the petitioners through the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench submitted a number of Representations highlighting the grievances of the petitioners herein along with other employees of Kohima Bench with regard to the recommendations made by the DPC / Special Review DPC. The petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 had also separately filed a Representation on 06.12.2010 setting forth his grievances therein with regard to the promotion given to the respondent no. 3 therein. He has submitted that one of the main grievances of the petitioners was that the respondents did not give due consideration to the aspect of seniority while recommending the candidates for promotion and as a result, immense prejudices were caused to the petitioners. Another main grievance is that the gradings made in the ACRs were not communicated at any point of time and due to such non- communication of gradings, the petitioners and other employees were deprived from the opportunity of making any representation for upgradation of such gradings. It is his Page No. 11/42 further contention that the recommendations for promotion to the respective higher cadre were made on the basis of defective ACRs and in view of such defective ACRs, there is requirement to carry out the promotional exercise afresh after necessary rectifications are made in the ACRs.
8.1. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, reported in [2008] 8 SCC 725; Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others, reported in [2009] 16 SCC 146; and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in [2013] 9 SCC 566. By referring to the said decisions, he has also prayed for grant of similar reliefs as had been granted therein.
9. Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, GHC has extensively referred to the proceedings of the DPC, held on 02.11.2010, and of the Special Review DPC, held on 30.08.2011, 17.09.2011 & 05.11.2011, to submit that all the grievances of the petitioners expressed through the Representations submitted by the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench and other individual representationists including the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012, were duly considered at every stage. He has submitted that the recommendations made by the DPC in the Meeting dated 02.11.2010 were not given effect to on receipt of the Representations. It was only after taking note of the grievances expressed by the employees of the Kohima Bench, the entire matter was enquired into by a two-member Committee resulting into a Comprehensive Report. He has submitted that there were some irregularities in the ACRs as there were re-writings in the ACRs at a later point of time. It is his submission that the petitioners have sought to project a different picture in these writ petitions then the actual one about which they were well aware of. As the ACRs in original for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 were available a conscious decision was taken on 14.08.2011 to proceed with the promotional exercise on the basis of such original ACRs. It is not the case of the petitioners that the gradings in those original ACRs were entered wrongly. Rather, a perusal of the grievances expressed through the Representations submitted would make it clear that the Page No. 12/42 petitioners were aware of the gradings entered in those ACRs and they had no grievance against such gradings. That the petitioners had no grievance about the gradings entered in those original ACRs for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 get substantiated from the fact that despite being aware about the gradings in the original ACRs, they did not choose to file any representation against such gradings at any later period of time till the institution of the writ petitions. He has vehemently contended that when the governing rule prescribes merit as the criteria for promotion it is not open for the petitioners to agitate that the aspect of seniority ought to have been given precedence over merit. It is his further contention that the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the cases in hand. Mr. Das has submitted that with the original ACRs for the years : 2005 and 2009 being not available, the decision taken to proceed with the promotional exercise by considering the original ACRs available was for the benefit of all concerned. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case, not to speak of a prima facie case, to interfere with the recommendations made by the Special Review DPC and the consequential orders passed on the basis of such recommendations. It is also his contention that the principles and procedures laid down in the decisions, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the cases in hand as the cases in hand are not about non-communication of gradings made in the original ACRs on the basis of which the recommendations for promotions were made. The decisions cannot be made applicable in a situation where the employee is aware of the gradings made in his ACR and after being so aware, is satisfied and content with such gradings.
10. Both Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 and Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[c] no. 2031/2012 have endorsed the submission of Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, GHC. The common line of submission of Mr. Dutta and Mr. Nath is that for all his promotions, merit is the criterion / norm set forth by the Rules, 1967 and no departure can be made therefrom. It is their submission that the petitioners have assailed the promotions on the ground that the aspect of seniority was Page No. 13/42 not considered while recommending the cases of the private respondents for promotion and the same cannot be acceded to. It is also their common submission that the recommendations for promotion in favour of the private respondents were made on the basis of the gradings made in their ACRs vis-à-vis the gradings made in the ACRs of the petitioners, about which the petitioners did not have any grievance at any point of time. Thus, the prayers in the writ petitions are not merited and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. With such submissions, they have urged for outright dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their submissions.
12. The respective seniority positions, as drawn by the seniority list dated 09.12.2010, are not in dispute and no challenge is laid in that respect. For the purpose of filling up the vacant posts, the resultant vacancies and the newly created post of SAA by way of promotion, lists of eligible employees, numbering 25 in total and as reflected in Table-I, Table-II & Table-III above, who were within the respective zone of consideration for the concerned posts indicated therein, were drawn up and initially, the same were placed before the DPC, constituted for the purpose of recommending names for promotion, for consideration along with the Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] of those eligible employees and other necessary materials. The names of all the petitioners and the private respondents in these two writ petitions figured in those lists of eligible candidates. The DPC held its meeting on 02.11.2010 and after examining the materials placed before it, the DPC had recommended the names for promotion from the lists of eligible candidates placed before it.
13. W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 :- The next promotional post from the post of Assistant Registrar is the post of Deputy Registrar whereas the next promotional post from the post of SAA is the post of Superintendent. When a number of vacancies including one Page No. 14/42 vacancy each in the posts of Deputy Registrar and Superintendent, were found available to be filled up by promotion, the DPC was constituted in order to recommend names of employees for these next higher cadre promotional posts.
13.1. As stated earlier, a Meeting of the DPC was held on 02.11.2010 and it considered the relevant ACRs and other documents of the eligible candidates, as placed before it by the respondent no. 2. For the post of Deputy Registrar, the DPC considered the cases of the petitioner no. 1, the respondent no. 3 and one Sri Ngutsonyi Losou, Stenographer and after consideration, the DPC recommended the name of the respondent no. 3 for the post of Deputy Registrar. In the said Meeting, the DPC also considered the names of the petitioner nos. 2 - 6 and the respondent no. 4 for the post of Superintendent and recommended the name of the respondent no. 4 for promotion to the post of Superintendent. The said recommendations of the DPC were forwarded by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 vide the letter bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5949/Estt. dated 03.12.2010.
13.2. On the basis of the said recommendations of the DPC, the Notification bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5970/Estt. dated 03.12.2010 came to be issued under the hand of the respondent no. 1 whereby the respondent no. 3 was promoted and appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar, Kohima Bench, Kohima temporarily and until further orders. Similarly, the other Notification bearing no. HC.V-123/09/6006/Estt. dated 03.12.2010 was issued under the hand of the respondent no. 1 whereby the respondent no. 4 was promoted and appointed to the post of Superintendent, Kohima Bench, Kohima temporarily and until further orders. Both these Notifications dated 03.12.2010 have been challenged in the writ petition along with the Minutes of the Meeting of the Special Review DPC held on 17.09.2011 and 05.11.2011, reference about which would be made in the later part of this order.
14. W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 :- The next promotional post from the post of JAA is the post of SAA. When a number of vacancies including 4 [four] nos. of vacancies in the post of SAA, were found available to be filled up by promotion, the DPC constituted for Page No. 15/42 the purpose of recommending names of the employees for the next higher promotional post of SAA, held its Meeting on 02.11.2010 and it considered the relevant ACRs and other documents of the eligible employees which included the cases of the petitioners and the respondent no. 3. After such consideration, the DPC recommended the name of the respondent no. 3 at serial no. 1 with the names of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 4 at serial no. 2, serial no. 3 and serial no. 4 respectively in order of merit for promotion to the post of SAA. The said recommendations of the DPC were forwarded by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 vide the same letter bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5949/Estt. dated 03.12.2010.
15. W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 & W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 :- After issuance of the first of the impugned Notifications bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5949/Estt. dated 03.12.2010 and the subsequent two Notifications bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5970/Estt. dated 03.12.2010 and no. HC.V-123/09/6007-6023/Estt. dated 03.12.2010 in relation to the promotions made to the posts of the Deputy Registrar and the Superintendent respectively, an application was submitted by the President of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench before the respondent no. 2 on 07.12.2010 with the request to furnish the Employees' Association a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC held on 02.11.2010 in order to ascertain the basis of the recommendations made in favour of the private respondents herein. The copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC was furnished to the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench on 08.12.2010. After going through the recommendations of the DPC made on 02.11.2010, the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench was of the view that the recommendations had adversely affected many of the member - employees of the Employees' Association.
16. The High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench had thereafter, submitted a Representation dated 09.12.2010 under the signatures of its President and General Secretary expressing their grievances on many aspects in respect of which recommendations were made by the afore-stated three Notifications, all dated Page No. 16/42 03.12.2010. In so far as the issue involved in these two writ petitions are concerned, the grievances expressed in the Representation can be summarised as follows :-
[i] For filling up 4 [four] nos. of vacant post of Senior Administrative Assistants [SAAs] by promotion, the Registrar had submitted bio-datas and ACRs of 10 [ten] Junior Administrative Assistants [JAAs] for the years : 2005 - 2009. The DPC on consideration of the ACRs recommended for promotion of the respondent no. 3 [Sri Arnon Ezung] in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, who was appointed to the post of JAA from the waiting list of the batch of the year - 2000 only. He had, thus, improperly superseded 7 [seven] nos. of senior employees including 4 [four] nos. of Junior Administrative Assistants [JAAs], who were appointed in the year 1999. Such exercise had made the aspect of seniority redundant and even the merit positions in the interview for recruitment had become meaningless.
[ii] For filling up the post of Deputy Registrar, the petitioner no. 1 [Shri Nisavilhu Hieme] in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 was the senior most Assistant Registrar and he was senior to the respondent no. 3 therein [Shri K. Adani Loli] by five years and was due for retirement in the year - 2012. The supersession of petitioner no. 1 in such manner and on the verge of his retirement had caused frustration as his long years of dedicated service were ignored and such a trend would set a bad precedent.
[iii] For consideration of promotion, the ACRs for the 3 [three] years of all the employees who were in the respective zone of consideration for promotion, had been sent by the Registry. Subsequently, the employees were directed to fill up fresh ACRs for 5 [five] years on the grounds that previous ACRs pertaining to 3 [three] years, sent earlier, were defective/misplaced. Thereafter, fresh ACRs for the previous 5 [five] years i.e. 2005 - 2009 of all the employees were re-written at one go in the month of July, 2010 and the employees had reason to believe that the cases for promotion were considered on the basis of the subsequently prepared fresh ACRs at one go. The employees had, thus, felt that it was not possible for any officer to correctly assess the performance of an employee for Page No. 17/42 the period of 5 [five] years at one go and such manner of preparation and assessment of ACRs were not to be allowed.
[iv] If merit is only criterion for promotion, then nobody would feel secure with their seniority positions and it would not be necessary to maintain a seniority list of the employees if the seniority would not have any weightage for consideration at the time of promotion.
With such grievances, the Employees' Association made a prayer to review the decisions contained in the afore-stated three Notifications, all dated 03.12.2010, and till a decision was taken on the basis of the said Representation, the Notifications [supra] should not be given effect to.
17. Another Representation came to be submitted by the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench on 29.12.2010 inter alia highlighting the following aspects and expressing the following grievances pertaining to the present two writ petitions :-
[i] The assessment and preparation of the ACRs had been done in such a way that ACRs of some employees had been assessed only for 3 [three] years whereas for others, it had been assessed for 5 [five] years. It was stated that one Smti. Medovino was the Section Officer in [a] the Establishment Section during the period : 2005 - 2007; and [b] the Judicial Section - I during the period : 2007 - 2009. The ACRs of the staff of the Establishment Section and the Judicial Section - I for the respective periods were written by Smti. Medovino and those ACRs were submitted before the authority and as those were assessed correctly, the Accepting Authority accepted the same without any complaint.
[ii] After Smti. Medovino retired from service in the year - 2009, the authority took a decision to re-write the ACRs of the employees on the ground that the previous ACRs were defective/misplaced. The ACRs for 5 [five] years were thereafter re- written by officers other than Smti. Medovino, who was the concerned Section Officer at the relevant periods of time. For fairness, the authority should have requested Smti. Medovino, although retired, to re-write the ACRs of the staff of the Page No. 18/42 relevant time as it was not possible for the officers who had re-written the ACRs, to correctly assess the performance of the staff of the aforesaid time and period. If the ACRs had not been re-written, then the merit positions of the employees of Kohima Bench would have been totally different.
18. The High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench submitted another Representation on 07.02.2011 stating inter alia that re-writings of the ACRs were done at the verbal instruction of the Registrar and without any official order. Since the entries/remarks made in the ACRs were not communicated, thereby, denying the opportunity to submit any representation for upgradation of the entries/remarks of ACRs the action was arbitrary. It was alleged that such actions of ordering re-writings of the ACRs of the employees verbally which were already accepted by the Accepting Authority, by Section Officers other than their respective concerned officers and such re-writings of the ACRs for 5 [five] years at one go, were improper and unfair.
19. Having come to know about the nature of grievances of the employees pertaining to the selection proceedings dated 02.11.2010 for filling up the existing vacant posts and resultant vacancies at various levels in the Kohima Bench by promotion - expressed through the afore-mentioned representations, one representation dated 06.10.2010 of the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no.
1831/2012 and other representations received in relation to the same selection proceedings, the representations were laid before the then extant Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] comprising of three members. The Committee thought it expedient to accord personal hearing to the representatives/office-bearers of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench as well as the individual representationist. After such personal hearing on 12.02.2011, the two pertinent issues amongst others that were identified for scrutiny by the Committee were :- [a] whether there was supersession of senior eligible members of the staff of the grades/ranks involved by their juniors; and [b] whether there was want of procedural propriety, transparency and fairness in the drawal of ACRs for the period 2005 - 2009. The Hon'ble Chief Justice on perusal of the Resolution dated 12.02.2011 of the then extant DPC, Page No. 19/42 entrusted two members of the Committee the task of looking into the entire matter vide an Endorsement/Order dated 28.02.2011. The ACRs of the officers and staff whose cases had been put up before the earlier DPC and other relevant materials, were requisitioned to be laid before a two-member Committee. The two-member Committee found various discrepancies / anomalies in preparing and maintaining the Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs], both original and re-written, and it also noticed missing of original ACRs for certain years. The discrepancies / anomalies included non- writing of ACRs of the officers and other staff of the Kohima Bench for the year 2005 till July, 2010; preparing of ACRs for the year 2005 by the officers under whom the incumbents were serving in July, 2010 as by then the relevant authorities had either demitted office or had expired, etc. The two-member Committee had opined from the outcome of its enquiry and the bearings thereof, that those had an all pervasive vitiating effect but at the same time, it had opined that the reservations expressed in the Representations regarding bias, malice and unauthorized interventions in the matter of re-writing the ACRs were ascertained to be lacking in substance. The two- member Committee had held that though the anomalies noticed in the process of re- writing the ACRs were easily discernible, the same were not demonstrative of any willful interferences prompted by impertinent and oblique motives. It was held that the illegalities and irregularities in re-writing the ACRs being impermissible, cannot be approved. The two-member Committee after going through the entire materials through an exhaustive exercise, submitted its Comprehensive Report with the following recommendations :-
[i] The proceedings of the DPC held on 02.11.2010 recommending promotions to the posts mentioned therein be cancelled and the process be undertaken afresh by excluding the ACRs of the year 2005 and instead including those for the year 2010, if have been prepared in the meantime. [ii] As the vacancies sought to be filled up by promotion relate to a period prior to formulation of the new norms therefor in terms of the Order no. HC.V.47/11/3340/A/Estt. dated 13.06.2011 of the Registrar General, those envisaged by Rule 18 of the Rules may be applied.Page No. 20/42
[iii] A uniform model of the hierarchy of the authorities, namely, Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Officers for the Principal Seat as well as the outlying Benches be evolved and a rationalized set of criteria be formulated for the preparation of the ACRs of all the officers and staff in the service of the High Court.
[iv] Necessary steps be taken against the erring officers of the Kohima Bench with the ultimate view of taking appropriate action against them for the anomalies in re-writing the ACRs leading to this unwarranted and avoidable complication.
20. After receipt of the Comprehensive Report with the afore-quoted recommendations from the two-member Committee, the Hon'ble Chief Justice after having gone through the Report, had vide Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2001, accepted the second recommendation and the third recommendation respectively of the Comprehensive Report. As regards the fourth recommendation, noting the observation of the Committee that it would not be possible to identify any individual or authority as the architect of the anomalies which had led to the situation the matter was ordered to be left at that stage in view of the various aspects indicated therein. In so far as the first recommendation was concerned, it was observed that the same was based on the conclusion that the original ACRs for 2005 and 2009 of the 25 [twenty five] officers whose cases were considered by the earlier DPC were not available and their original ACRs were available only for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Taking such fact situation into consideration, the following directions were made on 14.08.2011 :-
"The ACRs for these three years were irregular inasmuch as they were written on the basis of the financial year rather than the calendar year, as required by the High Court.
For the purposes of recommending promotions, the ACRs written on the basis of the financial year were sought to be converted into ACRs written on the basis of the calendar year. Essentially, this is the root cause of the entire problem, but there are other causes also mentioned in the Report.Page No. 21/42
The original ACRs were irregularly written but not illegally written. Therefore, on a consideration of all factors, it seems to me that the irregularity needs to be overlooked; otherwise it will not be possible to make any promotions. Any other course of action would not serve anybody's interest. If this is so, a fresh DPC would have to be convened, as suggested by the Committee, and that DPC would have to recommend promotions on a consideration of the ACRs written on the basis of the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2008. Since the ACRs for 2005 and 2009 are not available in original, they will necessarily have to be ignored."
Observing so, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by the Endorsement / Order dated 14.08.2011, constituted a Special Review DPC consisting of 3 [three] Hon'ble Judges to recommend promotions for the posts mentioned in the Report taking into consideration only the original ACRs of the officers concerned for 2006, 2007 and 2008 as they were available. The recommendation of the two-member Committee in the Comprehensive Report to consider the ACR for the year 2010, if they had been prepared in the meantime, was not accepted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the reason that the DPC related to promotions of an earlier period and if the ACRs of a later period were taken into consideration, the recommendatory process would be vitiated. The Special Review DPC was requested to endeavour completion of the process at the earliest. In was ordered that until the process was completed, the status quo would continue.
21. The Special Review DPC held one of its Meetings on 30.08.2011 and in the said Meeting, the Special Review DPC took note of the Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Special Review DPC in view of the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to the second recommendation in the Comprehensive Report, decided to apply the criteria / norms contained in Rule 18 of the Gauhati High Court Services [Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct] Rules, 1967 ['the 1967 Rules' and/or 'the Rules, 1967', for short] for the purpose of assessment of the comparative suitability and recommendations for the posts under Page No. 22/42 reference. With the above criteria / norms, the Special Review DPC evaluated the candidates on the basis of their Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] for the years :
2006, 2007 and 2008 [prepare financial year-wise] having due regard to their overall suitability and seniority to the extent and enjoined by Rule 18 of the 1967 Rules. The Special Review DPC held another Meeting on 17.09.2011 and in the said Meeting, it considered the candidatures of 25 nos. of candidates within the zone of consideration for the following posts for making recommendation for promotion :-
Name of the Post Number of Post Joint Registrar 1 Deputy Registrar 1 Assistant Registrar 1 Superintendent 1 Senior Administrative Assistant 4
22. For promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, the Special Review DPC considered the candidatures of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 and also of one Sri Ngutsonyi Losou, Senior Grade Stenographer, Matriculate. The Special Review DPC considering the finally accepted gradings of the said three employees in their ACRs prepared financial year-wise for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 recorded its findings in the following manner :-
Table - IV Names 2006 2007 2008 1 N. Hieme, Assistant Registrar, B.A. - Petitioner no. 1 Very Good Good Very Good 2 Sri K. Adani Loli, Assistant Registrar B.A. - Respondent no. 3 Very Good Very Good Very Good 3 Sri Ngutsonyi Losou, Sr. Grade Stenographer, Matriculate Very Good Good Good 22.1. For promotion to the post of Superintendent, the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 3, the petitioner no. 4, the petitioner no. 5, the petitioner no. 6 and the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 were considered along with one Temsuyangla by Special Review DPC and the findings were recorded in the following Page No. 23/42 manner :-
Table - V Names 2006 2007 2008 1 Temsuyangla, Record Keeper, Under Matric. Good Good Good 2 Kouliebeizo Mepfhou, SSA, Under Graduate - Petitioner no. 2 Good Good Good 3 Imsiuyanger Ao, SSA, B.A., LLB. - Respondent no. 4 Very Good Very Good Very Good 4 N. Mhao Kikon, SSA [Accountant B.A. Hons.] - Petitioner no. 3 Very Good Good Good 5 Tammila Zimik, SSA, B.A. [Hons.] - Petitioner no. 4 Good Good Good 6 Canaany Jajo, SSA, B.A. - Petitioner no. 5 Very Good Very Good Very Good 7 Maureen Murry, SSA, M.A. - Petitioner no. 6 Very Good Good Good 22.3. For filling up the 4 [four] nos. of vacancies including 1 [one] newly created post, in the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA], the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 3, the petitioner no. 4, the petitioner no. 5, the petitioner no. 6, the petitioner no. 7, the petitioner no. 8, the petitioner no. 9 and the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 were considered. After such consideration, the Special Review DPC recorded its findings in the following manner :-
Table - VI Names 2006 2007 2008 1 Lolenmakla Jamir, JAA, M.A. - Petitioner no. 1 Very Good Very Good Very Good 2 Jeet Bahadur, JAA, B.Com - Petitioner no. 3 Very Good Good Very Good 3 Renpuia Humtsoe, JAA, B.Sc [Hons.], LLB - Petitioner no. 2 Very Good Very Good Very Good 4 Ayimpongla Aier, JAA, M.A. - Petitioner no. 4 Very Good Very Good Good 5 Pfuchupe Koza, JAA, B.A. - Petitioner no. 5 Good Fair Good 6 Ajen Joshua Longjumer, JAA, B.Sc - Petitioner no. 6 Very Good Good Good 7 Arnon Ezung, JAA, B.Sc, LLB - Respondent no. 3 Very Good Very Good Outstanding 24.07.2008 to 31.12.2008 8 Smti. Tshiisiethsii Poji, JAA, B.A. - Petitioner no. 7 Very Good 9 Smt. Atula Jatila, JAA, M.A. - Petitioner no. 8 Good 10 Khekishe Sumi, JAA, B.A. - Petitioner no. 9 Very Good
23. It needs iteration that in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012, the two Notifications - Notification bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5907/Estt. dated 03.10.2010 and Page No. 24/42 Notification no. HC.V-123/09/6006/Estt. dated 03.10.2010 - have been put to challenge. The said two impugned Notifications were issued based on the recommendations made by the DPC in its Meeting held on 02.11.2010. After the DPC Meeting dated 02.11.2010, the Representations dated 09.12.2010, 29.12.2010 and 07.02.2011 were received from the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench in relation to the recommendations made by the DPC on 02.11.2010, apart from four other individual representations from Sri N. Heime, Assistant Registrar of the Kohima Bench [the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1381/2012]; Sri El Watti Longchar, Superintendant of Kohima Bench; Sri Kuoliebeijo, SSA of the Kohima Bench;
and Sri Jeet Bahadur, JAA [the petitioner no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012] of the Kohima Bench. When those Representations were laid before the then extant DPC, the Committee accorded personal hearing to the representatives / office bearers of the High Court Employees' Association as well as the individual representationists. The two-member Committee thereafter, identified three issues, including two issues relevant to the issues involved herein, for scrutiny and submitted the Comprehensive Report with four recommendations. The first recommendation was for cancellation of the proceedings of the DPC held on 02.11.2010 recommending promotion to the posts mentioned therein and to undertake the process afresh excluding the ACRs of the year 2005 and by including the ACRs for the year 2010, if those ACRs had been prepared in the meantime. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide his Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 had directed to convene a fresh DPC and to recommend promotions on a consideration of the ACRs written on the basis of the financial year-wise for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008, thereby, accepting the recommendation of the two-member Committee to cancel the proceedings of the earlier DPC held on 02.11.2010 recommending promotions to the posts mentioned therein and it was ordered that until the process was completed, the status quo would continue. In view of the Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice the recommendations made by the earlier DPC held on 02.11.2010 got obliterated and as a result, the consequential two impugned Notifications, that is, the Notification bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5907/Estt. dated 03.10.2010 and the Notification no. HC.V-123/09/6006/Estt. dated 03.10.2010 had also got obliterated. In such view of Page No. 25/42 the matter, no further dilation is necessary in respect of the challenge made in relation to the two impugned Notifications - Notification bearing no. HC.V-123/09/5907/Estt. dated 03.10.2010 and Notification no. HC.V-123/09/6006/Estt. dated 03.10.2010, assailed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012, as they were not given effect to.
24. Other than the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012, the other writ petitioners in the two writ petitions are found to have chosen not to submit any individual and separate representation with regard to their grievances in relation to promotion. It is the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench who had represented the grievances of their members including the petitioners herein, in a collective manner by submitting the Representations dated 09.12.2010, 29.12.2010 and 07.02.2011 respectively. One of the grievances ventilated through the afore- mentioned Representations was that in the whole exercise the inter se seniority positions of the employees were made redundant and meaningless.
25. At this juncture, it may be apposite to mention herein that the matter of recruitment and conditions of service of the members belonging to the afore- mentioned cadres in the establishment of Kohima Bench are regulated and governed by a set of Rules, namely, 'the Gauhati High Court Services [Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct] Rules, 1967' ['the 1967 Rules' and/or 'the Rules, 1967', for short], framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Clause [1] of Article 229 of the Constitution of India has provided that appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may be direct, provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Clause [2] of Article 229 has prescribed that subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court Page No. 26/42 authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose, provided that the rules made under Clause [2] shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. It is not the case of the parties that there is any rule framed by the Governor of the State of Nagaland governing the matter of promotion of the officers and employees of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima. Thus, it is the rules framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, that is, the 1967 Rules, which governed the matter of promotion of the officers and employees of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima at the relevant point of time. Thus, the provisions of the 1967 Rules governed the matter of promotion involved herein.
26. As per the then extant Rule 7[2] of the Rules, 1967, a post in the cadre of Deputy Registrar could be filled up from amongst the members of the State Judicial Service Grade-II or by promotion from Grade-III thereof, or practicing advocates of not less than 7 years standing at the Bar or by a Gazetted Officer in the High Court's Service belonging to Class-II-A having a degree in law. The post of Superintendent was classified as Class-II[C] Gazetted post and the same was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the employees in the lower grade in Class-III, ordinarily on merit. The post in the cadre of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] was classified as Class-III[A], Ministerial Establishment [non-Gazetted] and the same was to be filled up by promotion from the employees in the feeder cadre of Junior Administrative Assistant [JAA]. As per Rule 18 of the Rules, 1967, vacancies in the higher grades of the Ministerial services shall be filled up according to merit, and ordinarily by promotion from the lower grades, seniority being counted only when the merit is equal. It is a settled position of law that a person has no fundamental right of promotion in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, but he has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. The terms and conditions of service of an employee including his right to be considered for promotion are governed and regulated by rules framed and for the cases of the petitioners herein, it is the 1967 Rules.
27. The two-member Committee in its Comprehensive Report on the issues relating Page No. 27/42 to promotion, recommended that the fresh promotional exercise ought to be conducted by applying the criteria/norms envisaged by Rule 18 of the Rules, 1967. As per the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Special Review DPC in its Meetings held on 30.08.2011 & 17.09.2011 decided to apply the criteria/norms contained in Rule 18 of the Rules, 1967 for the purpose of assessment of the comparative suitability of the candidates within the zone of consideration. In terms of the prescription of Rule 18, the recommendations for the post of Deputy Registrar, Superintendant and Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] were to be based on the inter se merits of the candidates and their seniority was to be counted only when their merits were adjudged to be equal. The Special Review DPC in its Minutes of the Meetings held on 30.08.2011 and 17.09.2011 had mentioned that it had applied the criteria/norms contained in Rule 18 for the purpose of making the recommendations for promotions to the next higher cadres. It had further mentioned that the Special Review DPC had principally evaluated the candidates on the basis of their ACRs for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 [prepared financial year-wise] having due regard to their overall suitability and seniority to the extent enjoined by Rule 18 of the 1967 Rules.
28. Viewing in the afore-mentioned context, the Special Review DPC found that for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 had a better claim merit-wise over the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 and one Sri Ngutsomyi Losou, Senior Grade Stenographer, Matriculate, whose cases were also considered for the purpose of promotion. The Special Review DPC had, on the basis of comparative suitability as per Table - I and Table - IV above, accordingly recommended the name of the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] 1831/2012 for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, Kohima Bench.
28.1. The Special Review DPC recorded that for promotion to the post of Superintendant, the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 had a better claim merit-wise over the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 3, the petitioner no. 4, the petitioner no. 5, the petitioner no. 6 and one Temsuyangla, Record Keeper, Page No. 28/42 Under Matric, whose cases were also considered for the purpose of promotion. The Special Review DPC while recommending the name of the respondent no. 4 for promotion to the post of Superintendant as per Table - II and Table - V above, had observed that though merit-wise on the basis of the ACRs under consideration, the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner no. 5 were at par, the respondent no. 4 was senior to the petitioner no. 5.
28.2. There were 4 [four] vacancies in the cadre of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]. The Special Review DPC considered the ACRs of 10 [ten] nos. of candidates mentioned in Table - III and Table - VI above, and recommended the names of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4, in order of merit, for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]. The Special Review DPC had further observed though merit-wise as per the relevant ACRs, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 were at par and had joined the post of Junior Administrative Assistant [JAA] on the same date i.e. on 09.08.1999, the petitioner no. 4 had to be recommended as he was senior in age than the petitioner no. 3.
29. There is no substance found in the contention of the petitioners that in recommending and effecting promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrar, Superintendant and Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] the aspect of seniority was not given due consideration and was rendered meaningless. In the Rules, 1967, it has been specifically prescribed that the vacancies in the higher grades shall be filled up according to merit and ordinarily by promotion from the lower grades, seniority being counted only when the merit is equal. Thus, it is the merit of the respective candidate within the zone of consideration, which becomes the deciding factor. The aspect of seniority also plays a role but it is a secondary role and it is to be counted only when the inter se merits of two candidates are found to be equal. When the assessments of comparative suitability made by the Special Review DPC, as reflected from the Table - I to Table - VI above, are looked at by keeping in mind the merit of the respective candidate as the deciding factor in terms of Rule 18 of the 1967 Rules and the role of Page No. 29/42 seniority comes into play only when the merits are equal, no fault can be found in the assessments of such comparative suitability of the candidates made by the Special Review DPC and the consequential recommendations made in favour of the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 for the post of Deputy Registrar; the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 for the post of Superintendant; and the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 for the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]. It is not open for a candidate- employee who is otherwise senior to another candidate-employee with both governed by the same set of binding rules, to contend that seniority is to be given precedence in recommending promotion when the relevant rules governing the matter of promotion prescribes the criteria / norms for promotion as merit. There is nothing on record which goes to indicate that on the aspect of the criteria/norms of promotion, that is, merit, there was any violation of the fundamental right contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India or Rule 18 of the Rules, 1967.
30. Another of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is that there were non-communication of the gradings in the ACRs of the petitioners by the respondent authorities and in support of such submission, the three decisions, mentioned above, have been referred to on behalf of the petitioners.
30.1. In Dev Dutt [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every entry in the Annual Confidential Report [ACR] of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the reason behind the requirement of such communication is that because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : [i] had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future; and [ii] he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. It has, thus, been observed that every entry and not merely a poor or adverse entry relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the Page No. 30/42 State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service [except the military] must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a benchmark or not. Even if there is no benchmark, non-communication of an entry in the ACR may adversely affect the employee's chances of promotion or getting some other benefit, because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion or some other benefit a person having a 'good' or 'average' or 'fair' entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a 'very good' or 'outstanding' entry. The principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution requires such communication and, thus, non- communication of such entry would be arbitrary and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
30.2. In Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar [supra], the appellant who was a Post Master General and was eligibile to be promoted to the Higher Administrative Grade Group-A of Indian Postal Service and to be posted as the Chief Post Master General, was denied promotion because of an entry of 'good' in a particular period. According to the appellant, since the said adverse 'good' entry was not communicated to him, the said aspect ought not to have been considered while considering his promotion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though the benchmark 'very good' was required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of 'good' was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of 'good' should have been communicated to him as he was 'very good' in the previous year. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle laid down in Dev Dutt [supra].
30.3. In Sukhdev Singh [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirming the principle laid down in Dev Dutt [supra], has observed that communication of an entry in the ACR helps in achieving three-fold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR of a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may dissatisfy with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for Page No. 31/42 upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principle of natural justice.
31. It has been supplicated on behalf of the petitioners that the principles enunciated by the afore-mentioned decisions are applicable proprio vigore to the cases in hand. The learned counsel for the respondents have beseeched that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom and even a slight distinction in fact or an additional or different fact may make a whole lot of difference in the decision making process. While the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that non-communication of the entries in the ACRs had vitiated the entire process, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the principles enunciated by the afore-mentioned decisions cannot be applied in the cases in hand. It is their contention that the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench acted as the mouthpiece of the employees including the petitioners herein and the grievances of the employees were raised through a number of Representations, indicated hereinabove. In all those Representations, the main grievance raised was that there were irregularities in making the entries in the ACRs in some of the previous years. To appreciate the rival contentions, it appears necessary to have a re-look at the grievances made in respect of such issues in the representations of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench.
32. In the Representation dated 09.12.2010, the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench mentioned that for consideration of promotion, the ACRs for 3 [three] years of all the employees who were in the zone of consideration for promotion, were sent by the Registry. Subsequently, the employees were directed to fill up fresh ACRs for the last 5 [five] years on the grounds that previous ACRs pertaining to 3 [three] years, sent earlier, were defective/misplaced. Thereafter, fresh ACRs for the 5 [five] years i.e. from 2005 to 2009 of all the employees were re-written at one go in the month of July, 2010 and the employees had reason to believe that the cases for promotion had been considered on the basis of those subsequent fresh ACRs. The Page No. 32/42 grievance raised by the said Representation was to the effect that it was not possible for any officer purportedly as the Reporting Authority to correctly assess the performance of an employee for the period of 5 [five] years at one go and such preparation and assessment of ACRs could not have been allowed. The High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench through its Representation dated 29.12.2010 had represented that the assessment and preparation of the ACRs had been done in such a manner that ACRs of some employees had been assessed only for 3 [three] years whereas for others, it had been assessed for 5 [five] years. It was further represented that one Smti. Medovino was the Section Officer in [a] Establishment Section during the period : 2005 - 2007; and [b] Judicial Section - I during the period : 2007 - 2009. The ACRs of the staff of the Establishment Section and the Judicial Section - I for the respective periods were written by Smti. Medovino and those ACRs were submitted before the authority and as those ACRs were assessed correctly, the Accepting Authority accepted the same without any complaint. It was further highlighted in the same Representation that after retirement of Smti. Medovino in the year 2009, the authority took a decision to re-write the ACRs on the ground that the previous ACRs were defective/misplaced and the ACRs for 5 [five] years were thereafter re-written by officers other than Smti. Medovino, who was the concerned Section Officer at the relevant time. It was urged on behalf of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench through the said Representation dated 29.12.2010 that for fairness, the authority should have requested Smti. Medovino, although retired, to re-write the ACRs of the staff of the relevant time as it was not possible for the officers who had re-written the ACRs, to correctly assess the performance of the staff of the afore-said time and period. It was again represented by the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench through its Representation dated 07.02.2011 to the effect that re-writings of the ACRs were done at verbal instructions and without any official order. Since the entries/remarks in the ACRs were not communicated and there was denial of opportunity to submit any representation for upgradation of the entries/remarks of the ACRs the action was arbitrary. It was contended that re-writings of the ACRs by any verbal order, that too, by officers other than the respective employee's concerned officer were improper and unfair when the Page No. 33/42 ACRs were already accepted by the Accepting Authority.
33. Thus, what have emerged from the grievances expressed through the afore- mentioned Representations are that re-writings of the ACRs for [five] years on the ground that the previous ACRs were defective and as such, they were not acceptable to the members of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench. The reason advanced for such non-acceptance was that re-writings of the ACRs for the 5 [five] years were not done by proper authorities and such re-writings were done at one go in the month of July, 2010 only at a verbal instruction and not without any formal order. It was canvassed that the entries in the ACRs for a particular period were written by an appropriate authority and those ACRs were subsequently submitted before the Accepting Authority and as those ACRs were assessed correctly, the Accepting Authority accepted the same without any complaint. It was further canvassed that if at all the entries in those ACRs for 5 [five] years were to be re-written in view of any kinds of irregularities, then for the sake of fairness, the same should have been allowed to be re-written by the same officer, although retired in the meantime, as it was not possible for any other officer to correctly assess the performance of those employees for the aforesaid period of 5 [five] years. It was also canvassed that since the re-written entries in the ACRs for those 5 [five] years were not communicated to any of the petitioners, the same had prevented the petitioners from availing the opportunity of making any representation for upgradation of the re-written entries made in those ACRs for 5 [five] years.
34. The grievances expressed by the employees through the Representations of the High Court Employees' Association and other representations came to be considered by the then extant DPC. The Committee also accorded personal hearing to the representatives/office bearers of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench as well as the individual representationists. The Committee held one of its Meetings on 12.02.2011 and after due consideration of the grievances, recommended an enquiry. The Hon'ble Chief Justice on a perusal of the Resolution dated 12.02.2011 taking note of the seriousness of the plea raised, entrusted a two-member Committee the task of Page No. 34/42 looking into the entire matter vide His Lordship's Endorsement/Order dated 28.02.2011 and required the Registrar General to requisition the ACRs of the officers and staff whose cases were put up before the earlier DPC on 02.11.2010 as well as the notes and papers laid before it. The two-member Committee held its Meetings on various dates and from time to time and called for the relevant records and information. As per an Order issued under Memo no. HC.V-2/2003/2001-2011/Estt. dated 30.01.2003 of the Registrar General, GHC, the reporting period in the ACR is to be a calendar year. The two-member Committee had found that a direction was made by a Note dated 12.07.2010 to prepare the ACRs of the concerned employees, which were prepared financial year-wise as the reporting period, on the basis of the calendar year and corrections were made in the ACRs by changing the reporting period from financial year to calendar year. The Note further mentioned that the old ACRs were to be retained for future reference. After a detail deliberation on those aspects, the two- member Committee ordered the Registry of the Principal Bench to submit a compilation of the comparative features of the original ACRs as well as the re-written ACRs of all the 25 [twenty-five] candidates. The two-member Committee received a Report of Inquiry from the Registrar, Kohima Bench dated 08.06.2011, which inter alia disclosed that the original ACRs were prepared as per the financial year and thereafter, the ACRs were re-written as per the calendar year; and the ACRs of the officers and other staff of the Kohima Bench for the year 2005 were not written till 2010 and were prepared simultaneously in July, 2010. It was further disclosed that the ACRs for the 2005 were prepared by the officers under whom the incumbents were serving in July 2010 as by then, the concerned reporting authorities had either demitted office or had expired and the ACRs of the officers and the staff of the Registry of the Kohima Bench were prepared in July, 2010. The two-member Committee had also recorded a finding that while re-writing the ACRs for the relevant years of the officers and staff of the Kohima Bench calendar-wise, re-assessments were made without revealing any reason for reduction and/or enhancement of marks in the ACRs. For the said reasons and other reasons mentioned in the Reports, submitted by it, the two-member Committee as its first recommendation had recommended for cancellation of the proceedings of the DPC held on 02.11.2010 and to undertake the process afresh by excluding the Page No. 35/42 ACRs of the year 2005 and by including those for the year 2010, if those were prepared in the meantime. Taking note of the findings recorded by the two-member Committee in its Comprehensive Report and the recommendations made thereof, the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide his Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 had noted that the original ACRs for 2005 and 2009 of the 25 [twenty-five] candidates whose cases were considered by the DPC were not available but their original ACRs for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were available. The Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 had further observed that for the purpose of recommending promotion, the ACRs, re-written on the basis of the financial year sought to be converted into ACRs written on the basis of the calendar year and the same was the root cause of the entire problem. The Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 had further observed that the original ACRs were not illegally written but they were written in an irregular manner. Having considered all the factors, the Hon'ble Chief Justice had observed that the irregularities were to be overlooked; otherwise, it would not be possible to make any promotion and any other course of action would not serve anybody's interest. With such observation, the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide his Endorsement/Order dated 14.08.2011 constituted the Special Review DPC consisting of three-members to recommend the promotion for the post mentioned in the report by taking into consideration only the original ACRs of the officers and staffs concerned, prepared on the basis of the financial year, for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 with the further observation that since the ACRs for the years, 2005 and 2009 were not available in original they had to be necessarily ignored.
35. It is worthwhile to state that the findings made and the four recommendations, more particularly, the first recommendation and the second recommendation thereof, recommended by the Committee in its Comprehensive Report have not been challenged in any manner either by the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench or by any of the petitioners herein. The Endorsement / Order dated 14.08.2011 made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice has also not been assailed in any manner. It is only the Minutes of the Special Review DPC Committee dated 17.09.2011 which have been put to challenge in these two writ petitions. At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the Special Review DPC in its Meeting, held on 17.09.2011, considered the ACRs Page No. 36/42 of the employees for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 for the purpose of considering their cases for promotion to the next higher cadre post.
36. It is the case of the petitioners that the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench after 17.09.2011, submitted another Representation highlighting their grievances, on 30.09.2011. The petitioners had averred that the said Representation was in addition to their earlier Representation. Thus, it is necessary to look at the grounds urged in the Representation dated 30.09.2011 in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. In the Representation dated 30.09.2011, the grievances were expressed in the following manner :-
Firstly, the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 [Shri Nisavilhu Hieme, Assistant Registrar] was going to retire from service on 30.09.2012 and since he had got only one year's service left, his case should be considered on humanitarian ground and for pensionary benefits;
Secondly, the petitioner no. 2 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 [Shri Kuoliebeizo Mepfhou, SAA] was the seniormost SAA but he was not even in the zone of consideration for promotion;
Thirdly, the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 [Shri Arnon Ezung, SAA] was shown undue favouritism and was awarded with good gradings in his ACRs which paved the way for him to supersede 6 [six] senior employees who were equally or more efficient than him; and, Fourthly, the ACRs were assessed in a bias manner and not in accordance with merit and therefore, the promotion of the employees of the Kohima Bench should be considered for the occasion on seniority basis as a special case.
37. In the considered view of the Court, none of the above four grounds urged in the Representation dated 30.09.2011 can be given credence, for the reasons already indicated above. It is already established that under the 1967 Rules, the promotions to the posts in the higher cadres of Deputy Registrar, Superintendent and SAA were to be made on the basis of merit. One cannot, therefore, urge that promotions to the posts Page No. 37/42 in the higher cadres of Deputy Registrar, Superintendent and SAA ought to have been made on the basis of seniority as a special case for a single occasion in violation of the provisions of the Rules, 1967 which governed the matter of such promotion. For the very same reason, the grievance ventilated for the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 [Shri Nisavilhu Hieme, Assistant Registrar] to give him promotion on humanitarian ground as only a year was left to his retirement on superannuation cannot be countenanced. Since it is evident from Table - V above that the case of the petitioner no. 2 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 [Shri Kuoliebeizo Mepfhou, SAA] was considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, there was no basis for the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench to represent incorrectly that his case was not considered for promotion. Apart from a bald allegation that the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012 [Shri Arnon Ezung, SAA] was shown undue favouritism and was awarded with good gradings in his ACRs for the reason that he was officially attached to the former Registrar no other material in support of such allegation has been placed before this Court to draw any kind of notion of undue favouritism. Since it is the case of the High Court Employees' Association itself in their earlier Representation that the original entries in the ACRs of the employees for the three years : 2006, 2007 and 2008, which were considered by the Special Review DPC, were made by an officer correctly, such allegation made at later point of time, is found to be at variance with the stance taken in the earlier three Representations.
38. Be that as it may, the Representation dated 30.09.2011, submitted by the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench, made in connection with the recommendations recorded by the Special Review DPC on 17.09.2011 came to be considered in another Meeting of the Special Review DPC, held on 05.11.2011. In the said Meeting dated 05.11.2011, the grounds taken in the Representation dated 30.09.2011 were considered by the Special Review DPC and the same were dealt in the following manner :-
"Having regard to the post for which Mr. Nasavilhu Hieme was considered for Page No. 38/42 promotion i.e. Deputy Registrar, the criterion of "humanitarian ground" is wholly irrelevant and thus this plea in the representation cannot be entertained.
* * * * * * * * * * * The case of Mr. Kuoliebeizo Mepfuo, SAA was not only included in the list of eligible candidates within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent, the Committee also examined his case on the basis of the norms applicable. The plea that he was excluded from the zone of consideration is thus factually unfounded.
Rule 18 of the Rules reads as hereunder :
"18. ........ Vacancies in the higher grades of the Ministerial services shall be filled according to merit, and ordinarily by promotion from the lower grades, seniority being counted only when the merit is equal."
In terms of the categorization and the nomenclature of posts prescribed by the Rules, the post of Senior Administrative Assistant is one in the higher grade of the Ministerial Establishment [Non Gazetted] - III[A]. In this view of the matter, promotion to this post as per the above provision of the Rules has to be made according to merit and seniority is to be counted only when merit is equal. On a comparative assessment of suitability of the competing eligible Junior Administrative Assistants on the basis of the above criteria, Mr. Arnon Ezung, B.Sc. LLB has been recommended for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant.
As aforesaid, all relevant aspect including the process of preparation of relevant Annual Confidential Reports had been analysed by the Committee comprised of ***** and ***** and on a perusal of the report submitted by it, the Hon'ble Chief Justice by His Lordships' note dated 14.08.2011 desired that the promotional process be confined to the consideration of the original Annual Confidential Reports of the officers / staff concerned for 2006, 2007 & 2008. In this view of the matter, the reservation expressed in the representation against the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers / staff of the Kohima bench of this Court and in particular that of Mr. Arnon Ezung, SAA lacks persuasion and is construed unsustainable.
Page No. 39/42In the face of the applicability of Rule 18 of the Rules to the promotional process as approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in the opinion of the Committee no other norm in deviation therefrom can be applied. The Committee reiterates its recommendations made on 17.09.2011. The representation is rejected."
The reasons recorded by the Special Review DPC in its Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.11.2011 for rejection of the Representation dated 17.09.2011 of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench and reiterating its earlier recommendation made on 17.09.2011 received approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 09.11.2011.
39. It is most pertinent to state that the Minutes of the Meetings of the Special Review DPC, held on 17.09.2011 and 05.11.2011 respectively, are found to be within the knowledge of the petitioners as the Minutes of both the said Meetings of the Special Review DPC have been made part of the writ petitions. In the said Minutes, it had been clearly recorded that the Special Review DPC had considered the original ACRs of the concerned officers / staff for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 and as to why a process had to be undertaken afresh. The Minutes of the said two Meetings further demonstrated that the Special Review DPC had applied the criteria / norms envisaged by Rule 18 of the Rules, 1967. The Minutes of the said two Meetings further demonstrated that the fresh promotional exercise was undertaken in deference to the Endorsement / Order dated 14.08.2011 whereby it was intimated to the Special Review DPC so constituted, to take into consideration only the original ACRs of the officers / staff concerned for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008. The Comprehensive Report submitted by the two-member Committee on the issues raised in the Representations submitted by the High Court Employees' Association and the individual representationists has also been brought on record. The Endorsement / Order dated 14.08.2011 has also been brought on record. In the Comprehensive Report as well as in the Endorsement / Order dated 14.08.2011, the irregularities found in the re-written ACRs were recorded and those also contained the reasons as to why the decision to consider the original ACRs written on the basis of financial years had to be taken. The findings therein were also to the effect that the original ACRs for the years : 2005 and Page No. 40/42 2009 were not available in original and they had to be necessarily ignored. The decision to consider only the original ACRs for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008, even though written financial year-wise, was also contained therein. It is, thus, not open for the petitioners to contend that they were not aware of the aforesaid fact situation regarding existence of only the original ACRs for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008.
40. It has been found from the Representations of the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench, referred to hereinabove, that they were averse to the re- writings of the ACRs for five years at one go in the year 2010. A stand was taken therein to the effect that the concerned officer had already made the entries in the ACRs for the relevant years and those ACRs were already accepted by the Accepting Authority. Although it was contended through the Representations that if such re- writings of the entries in the ACRs for five years were to be made the same had to be made only by the very same officer who had made the entries in the original ACRs. Such contention cannot be accepted for the very reason that the officer who made the entries in the original ACRs had retired from service prior to July, 2010 and an officer, who was not in service due to reason like retirement, should not be allowed to make entries in the ACRs of serving employees. With non-existence of the original ACRs for the years : 2005 and 2009 and existence of the original ACRs only for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 are situations which cannot be reversed, the only option left to the authorities at the relevant point of time was to consider the matter of promotion of the eligible employees on the basis of the available records in the form of the ACRs written and accepted originally for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008. As could be gathered from the Representations on record, the entries in the ACRs, accepted by the Accepting Authority, were known to the officers and staff of the Kohima Bench and the High Court Employees' Association, Kohima Bench and with no protest lodged in respect of such entries in the ACRs for a long period of time despite being aware of those entries, the only inference that can be drawn is that the concerned officers and staff were satisfied and content with such entries in the ACR.
41. In none of the two writ petitions, there is any assailment against the decision of Page No. 41/42 the Special Review DPC to consider only the original ACRs of the employees within the zone of consideration for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the recommendations made on the basis thereof by the Special Review DPC Committee on the basis of merit in terms of the provision contained in the Rules, 1967.
42. From the discussion made above, it has clearly emerged that the cases in hand are not in respect of non-communication of any adverse entries in the ACRs of any of the petitioners. It bears repetition that it is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the entries made in the original ACRs for the years : 2006, 2007 and 2008. In view of the situation that the employees of the Kohima Bench including the petitioners, were not dissatisfied with the entries/gradings in the original ACRs for the years :- 2006, 2007 and 2008, the principles laid down in the three decisions, referred to on behalf of the petitioners, are found not applicable in the cases in hand.
43. In the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the cases in hand, as have been discussed above, the decision to undertake the promotional exercise for the vacancies on the basis of the gradings in the original ACRs in existence for the years :
2006, 2007 and 2008 is considered to be the most rational and prudent one to this Court, as the only alternative of re-writings of the entries/gradings in the ACRs cannot be contemplated in the obtaining fact situation. The petitioners have not been able to show any other equally rational and prudent option available to the authorities for undertaking such promotional exercise. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the recommendations made by the Special Review DPC for promotion in its Meetings, held on 17.09.2011 and 05.11.2011 respectively. Consequently, the resultant notifications issued on the basis of such recommendations in the form of the Notification bearing no. HC.V-
123/09[pt]/4574/Estt. dated 15.11.2011, assailed in both the writ petitions, and impugned order bearing no. HC[K]27/09/Estt/1850 dated 23.11.2011, assailed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, stand.
44. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned, the two writ Page No. 42/42 petitions are found devoid of merits and as such, they are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, they are accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant