Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivanna vs The Union Of India on 14 December, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.19756/2015(S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE BASAVA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECH)
MECHANICAL DIVISION-II
NEW MANGALORE PORT
TRUST, PANAMBUR,
MANGALORE - 575 010 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING
AND TRANSPORT,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
NEW MANGALORE PORT
TRUST, PENAMBUR
MANGALORE - 575 010
3. THE CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
PENAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
4. SRI LINGAPPA
S/O FATHERS NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(NOW PROMOTED AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER)
NEW MANGALORE TRUST
PENAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARANAHALLI LAW PARTNERS FOR R2 & R3.
SRI. SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI FOR R4.
COPY SERVED ON L. HARISH KUMAR, CGC FOR R-1
(MA NOT FILED). SRI. B.S. PRAMOD FOR R-1.
MADANAM PILLAI R., CGC FOR R-1.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
PROMOTION DTD.2.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-W AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING
(OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order of promotion dated
2.5.2015 in No.3/1/2015/CMC.1(1) issued by the third respondent a copy of which is produced at ANNEXURE-W.
(ii) ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other writ directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petition dated 26.3.2015 a copy of which is produced at ANNEXURE-T, dispose of the same in accordance with law and thereafter consider the case of the petition for promotion forthwith in the ends of justice. 3
(iii) Grant such other order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner is senior to 4th respondent in service. Petitioner's name was overlooked to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mech) in the scale pay of Rs.24900-50500 (Rs. 13000- 18250 pre-revised).
3. The aforesaid post is a selection post. Thus, DPC was constituted on 24.04.2015 to find out who are the eligible persons for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mech). DPC has drawn the proceedings while comparing the service particulars of the petitioner and 4th respondent. The extract of the proceedings dated 24.04.2015 reads as under:
The DPC again verified the ACRs of the two eligible candidates, namely Shri Shivanna and Shri Lingappa and found that, in case of Shri Shivana, the Reviewing officer recorded about his 'Not yet fit for promotion" in the APAR for the year 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13. For the year 2013-2014, the Reviewing officer has recorded 'no comments' as regards to fitness for promotion, while upgrading his overall performance from 'Average' to Good. Apart from that, the overall performance was 'average' 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. Having considered the assessment of the Reviewing officer as regards to fitness for promotion, the overall grading of performance and the adverse remarks made by the Reporting and Reviewing officer and the requirement of overall performance as 'good' for promotion to the 4 post of S.E.(Mech) which is a selection post, the Committee found him unfit for the said post.
Hence the Committee reviewed the performance of the next candidate Shri Lingappa and found the overall grading of Shri. Lingappa is very good for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14. The overall grading for the year 2012-13 has not been recorded by the Reviewing officer. There is no adverse remarks in the ACR of Shri. Lingappa during the last 5 years, that has been taken for consideration for promotion. As per the vigilance clearance, there is no adverse remark against Shri Lingappa.
4. In view of the aforesaid recording of the DPC, petitioner has not made out prima facie case to interfere with the promotion of the 4th respondent to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mech). Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the validity of the ACRs drawn for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 if it is not communicated to the petitioner as on this day. If it is communicated to the petitioner, in such an event, petitioner has failed to question the same. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the DPC proceeding findings holding that the petitioner is ineligible. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn