Gujarat High Court
Ramashankar Singh vs Union Of India & 4 on 28 September, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 620 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RAMASHANKAR SINGH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MRS KETTY A MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5
VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 28/09/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 20
HC-NIC Page 1 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) The petitioner herein is aggrieved because of his non-promotion to the post of Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Kandla Port Trust. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has therefore prayed to declare him eligible and entitled to be promoted to the said post with effect from 01.08.1999.
2. Coupled with the above principal prayer, the petitioner has made incidental prayers which include to hold the decision of rejecting the petitioner's case for the promotion reflected in the letter dated 10.01.2001 to be bad and contrary to law and to set aside the same. A direction is sought for against the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post and promote him. It is prayed to declare the action of filing up the post in question by way of deputation or transfer as illegal, and permanently restrain the respondents from resorting to the alternative method of recruitment by deputation or transfer.
3. The relevant facts available from the record may be set out. The petitioner joined respondent No.2- Kandla Port Trust (KPT) with effect from 15.03.1994 as Deputy Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer. He worked on the said post till 31.07.1999. One Mr. A. Janardana Rao who had been holding the post of Financial Officer & Chief Accounts Officer (FA & CAO) came to be promoted and appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Cochin Port Trust, leaving a vacancy for the Page 2 of 20 HC-NIC Page 2 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT post of FA & CAO, KPT.
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate from the feeder cadre for being promoted. It appears that the Kandla Port Trust submitted a proposal to the Central Government for filling up the said post. The Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India did not accede to the request and by letter dated 06.06.2000 required that the other method, for filling up the post, that is, by way of transfer or deputation may be resorted to. On 28.08.2000, the Ministry of Surface Transport addressed a letter to the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust stating that despite lapse of considerable time and though the request for filling up the post was made before long, the necessary proposal was not sent. The Kandla Port Trust was asked to send the proposal so that the post could be filled up at the earliest.
3.2 At that time, the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No. 10440 of 2000 before this court sought relief on the ground that if the post in question was to be filled up by way of transfer or deputation pursuant to the aforementioned letter dated 28.08.2000, his right to be considered for promotion would be prejudiced and jeopardized. The said petition came to be disposed of by this court by order dated 15.11.2000, by directing the authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 08.09.2000, which was already made by him. Respondent Page 3 of 20 HC-NIC Page 3 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT No. 1 Ministry in compliance with the direction of this court, decided the representation of the petitioner, pointing out that the matter had been considered by the Selection Committee and the Committee, after taking into account the assessment of ACRs and the instructions of Department of Personnel and Training, did not found the petitioner suitable for the post.
3.3 The prayers in the petition were opposed by the respondents by filing affidavits-in-reply. Respondent No.1-Union of India through its Under Secretary, Ministry of Shipping filed affidavit as well as additional affidavit. On behalf respondent No.2-Kandla Port Trust, affidavit-in-reply was also filed by the Deputy Secretary (Personnel). Respondent No.3 also filed his affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner filed his rejoinder affidavits.
4. This court heard learned advocate Mr. J. A. Adeshra for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas for respondent No.2; learned advocate Ms. Ketty Mehta and learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai had filed their appearances on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted when the post in question fell vacant on 31.07.1999. It was submitted that the petitioner had experience of five years and more working as Deputy Financial Advisor & Page 4 of 20 HC-NIC Page 4 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT Chief Accounts Officer. He submitted that it was a selection post to which the petitioner was the only claimant eligible and there was no age bar for the promotion. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was holding educational qualifications of B.Com first class, LL.B with first class, M.Com. with first class, passed the examination of I.C.W.A. examination, Chartered Accountant's Inter examination and also Company Secretary examination and had the experience as above. It was submitted that the petitioner was also given the charge of FA & CAO on 01.08.1999 and the then Chairman of the Kandla Port Trust had recommended his case for promotion.
4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that though he held charge of the post of FA & CAO from 01.08.1999 to 20.08.2001, he was not given regular order of promotion. The petitioner was finally bypassed and was discriminated against, submitted learned advocate for the petitioner. One R. Jaychandran-respondent No.3 herein was appointed as FA & CAO though he was not eligible as did not possess five years experience as Deputy FA & CAO. Leaned advocate submitted that his appointment was at the instance of one K. V. Rao, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport as he did not want the petitioner to be promoted and therefore, addressed letter dated 06.06.2000 to the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust for taking recourse to the method of transfer/deputation and instructing to change the merit criteria and instructing the grade "Very Good" as benchmark.
Page 5 of 20
HC-NIC Page 5 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015
C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT
4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the post to which the petitioner was seeking promotion was one at part with the Head of the Department. For recruitment to the said post, the Regulations called Kandla Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) Regulations, 1991 apply (hereinafter mentioned as "the Regulations"). It was submitted that not only the second method was consciously chosen, the criteria of grade "Very Good"
was introduced. The same was introduced as guideline, but was not included in the Regulations. It was submitted that by administrative instructions, the criteria was changed for promotion and the same was retrospectively applied by applying grade "Very Good"
as a consideration. It was submitted that the criteria was brought into the Regulations only at subsequent stage.
4.4 It was submitted that the petitioner had to his credit the grade "Good" and there was no adverse confidential remarks, therefore the petitioner was entitled to be promoted under the Regulations. He invited attention to the Schedule to the Regulation to submit that the method of recruitment to the post was by way of promotion, failing which by transfer/deputation and, failing the both, by adopting the direct recruitment method. About the qualifications, another criteria for recruitment was for promotion, by transfer or deputation. It was provided that the officer was required to hold an analogous post or having five years regular service in the lower post equivalent or above Deputy FA & CAO in Page 6 of 20 HC-NIC Page 6 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT a Major Port Trust or in Government or Semi Government Department. It was submitted that when the post was required to be first filled up by promotion, the method of transfer or deputation could not have been resorted to.
4.5 It was submitted that at the request of respondent No.3, his confidential remarks for the year 1999-2000 were reviewed and grade "Very Good" was given to him so that he could be promoted. Learned advocate submitted that as the benchmark "Very Good"
was adopted, petitioner's lawful claim was denied and he was discriminated in the matter of promotion in violation of his rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.6 Learned advocate for respondent No.1 relied on affidavit-in-reply filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, wherein, it was inter alia contended in paragraph 6 as under, "The contention of the petitioner that in view of his already holding the charge of the post of FA & CAO and his fulfilling the eligibility criteria, he has got a right to be promoted to the post of FA & CAO, is not correct. The Selection Committee has got a right not to recommend a candidate, even if the candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria, on the basis of his performance in ACRs and also taking into consideration the suitability of the candidate for the said post. Moreover, this Ministry has issued guidelines to Major Port Trusts prescribing among other things, the bench mark for appointment to a HOD level post. The post of FA & CAO in a Major Port is a very important one and he has to discharge a number of important Page 7 of 20 HC-NIC Page 7 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT functions."
"The selection committee did not find the petitioner suitable for appointment to the said post. It may further be clarified that holding the charge of a post is a temporary arrangement till regular appointment of a suitable candidate on promotion / deputation/ transfer basis. Therefore, a person can be asked to look after the duties of a higher post without making assessment of his ACRs."
4.7 Learned advocate for respondent No.2-Kandla Port Trust submitted that no right, much less any fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated. He submitted that the only right available to the petitioner was for being considered for the promotion. He submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but he was not found fit. He submitted that there was no practice of promoting the incumbent from the feeder cadre only to the post of Head of Department as alleged. As the petitioner's case was considered and he was not found suitable, alternative method by way of deputation/transfer was undertaken, submitted learned advocate for KPT.
5. The post of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (FA & CAO) is a post of Head of Department and the appointment thereto is governed by the aforementioned recruitment Regulations framed by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 124(1) read with Section 132 read with Section 132(1) of the Major Port Trust Act, called Kandla Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) Page 8 of 20 HC-NIC Page 8 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT Regulations, 1991. Regulation 4 thereof deals with appointment and says that all appointments to the posts of Heads of Department shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and the appointment could be either by promotion, transfer or deputation of employee by direct recruitment. About mode of recruitment, it is Regulation 5 which says that the method of recruitment and other qualifications connected with the appointment to the various posts would be those mentioned in the Schedule.
5.1 The post is a "Selection Post" as defined under Regulation 3(g). It is defined to mean a post to which appointment is to be made on the basis of merit. Regulation 3(h) defines "Selection Committee" and the Selection Committee means the committee constituted under Regulation 11 for the purpose of making recommendation for transfer/deputation, promotion or direct recruitment of a candidate to a post of Head of Department. Regulation 11 provides that the Selection Committee consisting of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, Government of India as its Chairman and Chairman, Kandla Port Trust and any other officer having experience in the field as may be nominated by the Central Government, to be the members, may be constituted to advise and assist the appointing authority in the matter of making selection of candidates for appointment to the posts of Heads of Department. Regulation 12 provides that when the post of the Head of the Department is to be filled up by way of promotion/transfer/deputation, the Chairman Page 9 of 20 HC-NIC Page 9 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT shall forward the names, age, qualifications, experience of the eligible officers, to the appointing authority together with necessary recommendation. It is further provided that the appointing authority may thereafter (i) make appointment by promotion, transfer/deputation from amongst the candidates sponsored or (ii) refer the candidates to the selection committee mentioned in Regulation 11 and
(iii) direct the vacancy to be filled up by direct recruitment.
5.2 When the post of FA & CAO in KPT fell vacant on 31.07.1999, the petitioner was already holding the post of Deputy Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer and was subsequently given charge of the post in question. It appears that the petitioner had made a request for promoting him. His case was put under consideration and a proposal to the the Central Government was also made by the Kandla Port Trust to promote him on the post, which was the appointing authority.
5.3 It appears that the correspondence took place between the Kandla Port Trust and the Central Government. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, addressed a letter dated 06.06.2000 to the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, stating, "The port trust has proposed promotion of Shri R.S. Singh, presently working as Dy. FA & CAO in the port for the post of FA&CAO. A perusal of his ACRs shows that during past 5 years starting from the year 1994-95 he has earned the grading of "Good". Since the post is of an H.O.D., it has Page 10 of 20 HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT been decided that the persons of lackluster performance should not be entrusted with the responsibilities of HOD. It is felt that for appointment to the post of HOD, the candidate should have at least a grading of "Very Good" and above. In view of this, you may like to consider taking recourse to the next method of recruitment, i.e. transfer/deputation as per the recruitment rules. The CRs of Shri R.S. Singh are returned herewith, which may kindly be acknowledged."
5.4 Pursuant to the direction in the order of this court in Special Civil Application of the petitioner as mentioned above, the representation of the petitioner came to be decided and the communication dated 10.01.2001 was sent to him stating that the committee after taking into account the assessment of ACRs and the instructions of Department of Personnel and Training did not find the petitioner suitable for the post of FA & CAO, KPT. It further appears that by communication dated 23.01.2001, the Government of India formally intimated the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post in question and it was requested to adopt the next method of recruitment, that is, transfer/deputation as per the recruitment regulations and send a fresh proposal.
5.5 On 03.11.2000, the Ministry of Surface Transport addressed a communication to the Chairman, all Major Ports regarding recruitment to post of Head of Department. It was inter alia stated that the recruitment rules for the post of Head of Department varied from Port to Port, that the rules were being interpreted in different manner by different Ports, Page 11 of 20 HC-NIC Page 11 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT that some of the rules provided for composite method of recruitment, that is, by transfer/deputation. It was stated that in order to streamline the procedure and to provide an opportunity to the management to select the best person suitable for the job, it was decided that all Port Trusts should uniformly adopt the composite method of recruitment for filling the posts of Head of Department, that is, promotion transfer or deputation. It was further stated in the said letter that promotion to the post of Head of Department should not be a matter of course and an officer to be appointed as Head of Department should really earn that position. It was opined that in order to ensure that the most suitable officer is selected for the post, recruitment rules should provide for selection by merit, and that the benchmark in the overall grading in the confidential rolls should not be below "Very Good". This was the guideline prescribed and the Port Trust authorities were asked to incorporate the same in the recruitment rules for future purposes.
5.6 In the Regulations applicable for recruitment to the post referred to above, as is seen, it is provided that the post is to be treated as Selection Post and for the selection to the post whether by way of promotion, or by transfer or deputation, the candidates would be considered by the Selection Committee constituted as per Regulation 11. The criteria for selection to the said post which is the "selection post" is the merit as the very definition in Regulation 3(g) provides.
Page 12 of 20
HC-NIC Page 12 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015
C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT
6. Once the selection was to be on merits, the
selection committee could assess the suitability of the candidate on all relevant criteria of merit. It is an admitted position obtained from record that the case of the petitioner was considered by the selection committee, but he was not found suitable. The first attempt was thus made to fill up the post by way of promotion, however the petitioner, the only candidate was adjudged to be not suitable, hence alternative method of appointing a person by way of transfer or deputation was resorted to.
6.1 The merit was the sole criteria provided for selecting the incumbent on the post. Judging the merit and suitability was the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee. It was for the selection committee to look into the aspects of merits for finding out the suitability of the candidate for being posted as FA & CAO. It is true that the Selection Committee considered the criteria of benchmark "Very Good", but it was for the Selection Committee to fix standard to assess merit. Merely because, higher standards is provided, the approach of the Selection Committee cannot be said as arbitrary. Insistence of higher standard of merit can be considered as commendable objectives to be achieved in the administration. The petitioner has not been able to show that lower standard benchmark was provided by any Regulation.
6.2 The procedure and criteria for selection and
Page 13 of 20
HC-NIC Page 13 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015
C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT
consideration of merits is the field exclusively
reserved for selection committee. This court would not sit in appeal over the wisdom for the selection made by the selection committee. It is not the case where it could be said that any discrimination was meted out or there was any arbitrariness.
6.3 As the criteria for selection was merit and the Selection Committee was to assess merits and suitability for the post in question, the various contentions that the grade "Very Good" was deliberately brought into as a factor for consideration or that it was in the nature of administrative instructions given effect retrospectively or that in the Regulations the benchmark grade was not mentioned in black and white and that it came to be incorporated in the Regulations subsequently etc., lost their teeth and became irrelevant. It was for the selection committee to adopt and apply its own yardsticks for merit selection and judging suitability of the candidate. Even without the grade or benchmark "Very Good" being suggested by the Government of India, it was always open and permissible for the selection committee to devise its own method of adjudging the merit of the candidates.
6.4 The petitioner was in the zone of consideration, and his case was placed before the selection committee which was considered by the committee. Beyond that, no further right could be claimed by the petitioner. It was right to be considered and not right to selection, nor was it a right to be promoted, whatever may be the Page 14 of 20 HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT criteria adopted by the selection committee in its decisional sphere of decision making of judging a suitable candidate. Therefore much harped argument of applying benchmark "Very Good" does not carry the case of the petitioner any further.
6.5 It was a mis-perception on part of the petitioner that the Rule was not amended and the executive instruction in the nature of guideline was applied retrospectively. Again, though the case and allegation of the petitioner was that the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Surface Transport-now the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India wanted his person to be posted as FA & CAO, and the grade "Very Good" was introduced at his behest, so that respondent No.3 could be posted by deputation, but are without material on record. Even the case of favoritism in its plain nature could be made out. Therefore, the contention raised on that score was also devoid of substance.
6.6 The contention that since the petitioner had held the post in question from 01.08.1999, he ought to have been promoted, is stated to be rejected. The petitioner was given a charge and he was an in-charge incumbent on the post after the previous holder left the post. Holding a charge of post by itself would not confer eligibility, nor would add to the merit for being considered. The petitioner held temporary charge of the post. In order to be promoted to the post, the petitioner was required to undergo the selection process before the selection committee and was Page 15 of 20 HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT required to earn the "selection post" for which the merit was the criteria. As the post could not be filled up by promotion, respondent No.3 is posted by deputation.
6.7 The decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Bedi vs. State of Punjab and ors. [2013 AIR SCW 1479] relied on by learned advocate for respondent No.2 deserves a reference. In that case, the appellant's claim was for the post of Battalion Commander. The criteria for promotion was seniority- cum-merit. The Apex Court held that fixation of necessary merit lies within the domain of policy making and going into it is beyond judicial interference unless found arbitrariness or mala fide. In this case, criteria for promotion is the merit alone and the principles observed by the Supreme Court are pertinent and that would apply, "Efficiency of administration cannot be compromised with at any cost. Thus, in order to meet said requirements, all eligible candidates in the feeder cadre must be subject to a process of assessment to determine whether or not an individual in fact possesses the specified minimum necessary merit, and in the event that he does possess the same, his case must be considered giving due weightage to his seniority. Furthermore, the statutory authority must adopt a bonafide and reasonable method to determine the minimum necessary merit, as is required to be possessed by the eligible candidate. It must also take into account his period of service, educational qualifications, his performance during his past service for a particular period, his written test, interview, etc. The authority must further be competent to allocate separate maximum marks on each of the aforesaid counts. Fixing such criteria, or providing for minimum Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT necessary merit, falls within the exclusive domain of policy making. Thus, it cannot be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their judicial powers, unless the same is found to be off the mark, unreasonable, or malafide."
(para 15)
7. Even otherwise, providing a guideline that the grading "Very Good" should be considered for the merit selection, cannot be for itself faulted with. There was nothing unreasonable or irrational if such was contemplated as preferential by the Government of India authorities. In Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 599], the facts were that in respect of recruitment to the various posts including the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, circular 12.03.1993 was issued mentioning the minimum educational qualification to be 8th Standard passed and preference to be given to the candidates having matriculation. There was another letter dated 21.11.1997 from the Director of Post Offices wherein it was mentioned that the Department had decided that the merit of the candidates for selection to the post should be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualification of matriculation if such candidates are available, otherwise on the basis of the qualification of 8th Standard. The case of the appellant was that he passed his matriculation examination with 55.8% marks and also qualified sincere secondary examination. On the other hand, respondent No.4 had secured 41% marks in the matriculation examination. The selection committee selected and appointed the appellant on the post on the basis of the merit, which was challenged by Page 17 of 20 HC-NIC Page 17 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT respondent No.4 before the Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia on the ground that as per the circular, minimum qualification was 8th Standard and since he had secured more marks in 8th Standard than the appellant, the appellant could not have been selected for the post.
7.1 The Apex Court dealt with the questions whether it was permissible to the Department to select the appellant on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by him in matriculation examination or the selection should have been made only on the basis of percentage of marks in the 8th Standard. The Supreme Court upheld the stand of the department and held, "The Guidelines/Norms/Instructions clearly stipulate that if the candidates, who have passed Matriculation examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in preferential qualification (i.e. Matriculation) and in the absence of Matriculate candidates, the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification, viz. 8th standard. It appears that the CAT as well as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated 21.07.1998 (SIC 21.11.1997) laid down by a Competent Authority. The CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts."
8. A further relevant fact and aspect is revealed that at a subsequent point of time also, when the post of FA & CAO again fell vacant, the petitioner' case was considered. This is evident from additional Page 18 of 20 HC-NIC Page 18 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 dated 25.08.2014 in which it is stated that on the subsequent occasion in the year 2010, when the post of FA & CAO fell again vacant, the Kandla Port Trust had circulated the vacancy and simultaneously also advertised for direct recruitment. The petitioner was one of the applicants and he and one Shri Krishna A, Dy. CAO, KPT were found eligible and were called for interview by letter dated 01.11.2010. None was selected and the vacancy was recirculated. It is averred in the additional affidavit, "....Accordingly, KPT was requested vide letter dated 24.11.2010 to re-circulate the vacancy under the composite method so that the officers who could be considered under the relaxed norms can also apply.....A meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 19.08.2011. Sh. Ramashankar Singh, Dy. FA & CAO, KPT was also one of the applicants. The Selection committee after considering the service particulars, vigilance status and ACR grading recommended the name of Shri Ramkrishna Ambati, Sr. Dy. CAO, Visakhapatnam Port Trust for appointment to the Post of FA & CAO, KPT, as 1st candidate in order of merit. The recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the competent authority and Shri Ambati was appointed as FA & CAO, KPT.......As explained in the preceding paras Selection Committee, after duly verification of rules and regulations, has considered the case of the petitioner and Shri Ramkrishna Ambati, Senior Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust recommended to the post of Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Kandla Port Trust."
8.1 Thus, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion on subsequent occasion as well. He was again adjudged to be not suitable by the Selection Committee.
Page 19 of 20
HC-NIC Page 19 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015
C/SCA/620/2001 JUDGMENT
9. Summing up in light of the foregoing reasons and discussion, as the post of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Kandla Port Trust, to which the petitioner aspired to be promoted was a "selection post" to be filled in on the criteria of merit only upon selection by the selection committee under the relevant statutory regulations, and since the petitioner's case was considered by the selection committee the basis of merit criteria for which the selection committee was the best judge, and there was no element of arbitrariness in the process of consideration of the petitioner along with respondent No.3, and the petitioner having been found not suitable by the selection committee to be appointed to the post, no right of the petitioner either statutory or fundamental was violated. None of the prayers of the petitioner for seeking promotion to the post could be granted. The present petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
10. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No cost.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandrashekhar Page 20 of 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 02 00:35:53 IST 2015