Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Ram Mohan Rao vs Chairman, Apsrtc, Musheerabad, ... on 1 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD348, 1999(3)ALT216
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed for a declaration declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Executive Director in terms of Judgment in WA No.94/1987 and WP No.5211/1993 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1965.
On 12-4-1982 he was kept under suspension. On 18-11-1983 his services were terminated. On 7-6-1984 the order' terminating his service was confirmed by the Board. Aggrieved by the orders of the Board, the petitioner filed WP No.15471/ 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed on 11-5-986 against which he filed WA No.94/1987 and the same was allowed on 31-3-1992. Against the judgment in WA No.94/1987, SLP No.6780/1992 was filed which was dismissed on 13-11-1992. Since the respondents have no succeeded before the Supreme Court, they have implemented the judgment in WA No.94/1987 and the petitioner was reinstated into service on 25-11-1992. The case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post as he was out of service from 1982 to 1992. Since he was out of service from 1982 to 1992 his case for promotion was not considered, he filed WP No.5211/1993 for a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment in WA No.94/1987. The writ petition was disposed of on 24-12-1996 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the directions issued in WA No.94 of 1987. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to various posts and found him to be unfit. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under regulation 6 of the Employees (Recruitment Regulations 1966) the Board under exercise of the power conferred under Section 45 of the Act shall constitute a selection committee in respect of posts included in Clause-I or Clause-II services for the purpose of promotion. Accordingly, the Board constituted a selection committee by resolution 20 of 1996 dated 14-2-1996 consisting of Vice-chairman and Managing Director as Chairman and Secretary to Government transport, R & B Department and Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railways as members. Though the selection committee constituted consists of three members, only 2 members have participated in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no quorum. In the absence of quorum, the selection made- by the respondents is contrary to rules and requires the consideration. The respondents while considering the case of the petitioner have allotted 25 marks for interview under which the petitioner was given less number of marks while the established rule is that 10 marks shall be allotted for the interview. Had they allotted 10 marks for the interview, perhaps the petitioner would have been selected. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner was allotted less number of marks for the length of service and the entire length of service was not taken into account. Had the respondents taken entire length of service into account, the petitioner would have got more than 60 marks. Similarly, if the service of the petitioner prior to suspension from service is taken into account, the petitioner would have been successful in getting selected. Therefore, the procedure followed by the respondents in awarding the marks is unreasonable. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
4. It is true that by resolution 20 of 1996, the Board under exercise of the power conferred under Section 45 read with regulation 6 of the A.P. State Road Corporation Recruitment Regulations, constituted a selection committee consisting of Vice-chairman and Managing Director as Chairman and the Secretary to Government, Transport, R&B, Department and Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railways as members.
5. However, from the proceedings before me, I find that only Vice-Chairman and Managing Director as Chairman and Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railways as member had participated in the meeting to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the respective post.
6. The question is whether the constitution of selection committee is not valid warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the selection process.
7. In this context, I may refer the observations of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Chandra v. Satyanarain Sinha, , wherein it was observed that "Proceedings of the Committee constituted for selecting a panel of names for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor are not illegal if for some reason, one of its three members cannot attend its meeting." It was further held that "In the absence of any rule of regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute a valid meeting."
8. No provision is brought to my notice providing for quorum in conducting. the meeting. In the absence of providing for any quorum by a regulation or rule, the presence of the majority of the members constitute a valid constitution of the committee in view of the judgment referred to above. Therefore, though the selection committee constituted consists of three members, the presence of two members constitute a valid committee and no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on this count.
9. Coming to the marks allotted to the petitioner the undisputed facts are that he was out of service from 1982 to 1992. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager with effect from August, 1984. They have earmarked 13 marks for the length of service, 10 marks for the qualifications, 50 marks for the record of service, 25 marks for the interview. Out of this, petitioner secured 14.00 marks for the length of service, 8 marks for the qualification, 28.66 for the record of service and 8 marks in the interview. The total came to 58.66 marks. I do not find any illegality or irregularity as far as the marks allotted to the petitioner.
10. Similarly, disease was considered for 1985 and the allotment of the marks was the same. For the year 1986, 50 marks were allotted for record of service, 15 marks were allotted for length of service, 15 marks for excellent performance/rewards/award and special qualifications and technical skills, 10 marks for reputation/integrity including public relations and personnel management, 10 marks for interview and no marks were allotted to punishments.
Out of this, the petitioner was allotted 24.69 marks for record of service, 15 marks for the length of service, no marks for excellent performance/rewards/awards and special qualifications and technical skills, no marks were allotted to reputation integrity including public relations and personnel management, 3 marks for interview and no marks for punishments etc. On an overall assessment, he secured 42.69 marks. The same is the position for the year 1988. For the year 1992, they have earmarked 70 marks for merit rating reports, 20 marks for length of service, 10 marks for appreciations/ rewards and for punishments nil. With the result, the petitioner secured 54.56 marks in total.
11. On a perusal of the marks, I am satisfied that the assessment of merit of the petitioner is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity, calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.