Chattisgarh High Court
Kuleshwar Singh Baghel(Dead ) Through ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2021
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition No.5039 of 2010
Kuleshwar Singh Baghel S/o Late Shri Y.P. Baghel,
Aged about 58 years, Presently posted as Deputy
Director Agriculture, State Insecticide Quality
Control Laboratory, Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon (CG) (Now Deceased)
1A Smt. Sharda Baghel, W/o Late Shri Kuleshwar
Singh Baghel, Aged about 60 years
1B Shri Mayank Baghel, S/o Late Shri Kuleshwar
Singh Baghel, Aged about 36 years
1C Dr.Shraddha Tikariha, D/o Late Shri Kuleshwar
Singh Baghel, Aged about 40 years
All Residents of B10, Rohinipuram, Opposite/In
front of Gayatri Hospital, District Raipur (CG)
LR's of Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh,
(a) Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)
(b) Secretary, General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission,
Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG)
3. Director Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture,
Krishak Nagar, Labhandi, Raipur (CG)
4. Pradeep Kumar Dave, S/o Not Known to the
petitioner, Aged about 55 years, Presently posted
as Deputy Secretary Agriculture, Mantralaya, DKS
Bhawan, Raipur (CG)
Respondents
For LR's of Petitioner:Mr.P. Acharya, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr.K.Rohan, Advocate For Respondents No.1&3:Mr.Aditya Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No.3 :Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aman Saxena, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :Mr.Y.S.Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board (Through Video Conferencing) 17/08/2021 2
1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P1) to the extent that respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) and the petitioner has not been promoted and eventually also calls in question review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceeding dated 29.3.2010 by which the petitioner has again been considered, but he has not promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture).
2. Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) duly constituted was convened on 15.12.2006 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) and in that DPC, respondent No.4 was also promoted along with four other candidates, but name of the petitioner was considered, but he was not promoted led to filing of WPS No.6432 of 2009 in which this Court directed the respondentState to convene a review DPC in order to consider the case of the petitioner and to rectify the errors committed by previous DPC held on 15.12.2006. In compliance of the order dated 15.3.2010, a review DPC was convened on 29.3.2010 and this time again, the review DPC considered the case of the petitioner and the DPC graded the petitioner as 3 "Very Good", but since the officers were already there in the merit list and secured "outstanding", therefore, the petitioner was not promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture), which has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition stating that the DPC downgraded the petitioner by taking his ACR for the year 2002 03 as "very good" though the accepting authority has graded him as "outstanding" and consequently, committed legal error in not awarding him "outstanding" and thereby not promoting on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture), as such, the petitioner be directed to be considered and promoted from the date respondent No.4 who is junior to the petitioner in unreserved category was promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture).
3. Return has been filed by the State and others respondents supporting the proceedings of the DPC and prayer has been made for dismissal of writ petition as the petitioner has rightly been not promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) looking to the assessment of gradings made by the DPC.
4. Mr.P. Acharya, learned counsel for legal representatives of the petitioner, would submit 4 that the DPC in the original DPC as well as in review DPC erred in downgrading the petitioner for the year 200203 and 200304 as "very good" in place of "outstanding" given by accepting authority holding that the accepting authority has given him "outstanding" by which the notice ought to have been given while downgrading and accepting the grading as "very good" for the year 200203, the DPC has committed grave legal error and if the grading for the year 200203 and 200304 are taken as "outstanding" as given by the accepting authority, the petitioner will get 'outstanding' in grading and will have to be promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) w.e.f. 29.12.2006 the date on which his junior i.e. respondent No.4 was promoted, as such, the impugned orders (Annexure P1 and P2) are liable to be setaside to that extent.
5. Mr.Aditya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 3/State, would submit that the accepting authority while upgrading the ACR's of the petitioner for the year 200203 and 200304 from "very good" to "outstanding" out to have assigned reasons by which the petitioner is entitled for "outstanding" grading, but has not been recorded while upgrading ACR's of the 5 petitioner for that particular period, therefore, the DPC is absolutely justified in assessing the petitioner on the basis of record as "very good"
and has rightly considered and held the petitioner not to be entitled to be promoted though found fit for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) and respondent No.4 being assessed "outstanding" and the petitioner being graded "very good" rightly respondent No.4 has been considered and promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture).
6. Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Aman Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would also adopt the submissions made by learned State Counsel and Mr.Y.S.Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.4, has joined with learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in supporting the action of the DPC.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. In the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened by the State Government, the cases of the eligible candidates were considered on 29.3.2010 on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) as per Rule 4(2) and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa 6 Padonnati Niyam, 2003 and criteria was undisputedly meritcumseniority. The first DPC was convened on 15.12.2006 (Annexure P7) consisting of officiating Chairman, Public Service Commission; Secretary Agriculture/Director Agriculture; & Deputy Secretary, Department of General Administration in which in para6, 17 candidates were considered and Shri Sikal Chandra Padam, Shri Maneshwar Kumar Chandrakar, Shri Shalig Ram Verma and Shri Pradeep Kumar Dave were given "outstanding". Para7 of the DPC proceeding dated 15.12.2006 is reproduced hereunder for sake of convenience: 7- inksUufr dh dlkSfV;ka rFkk lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds fu;e e/;izns'k flfoy lsok (inksUufr;ksa esa vkj{k.k] fopkj {ks= ds foLrkj dh lhek,a) 1997 ds lanHkZ esa oxhZdj.k%
(v) U;wure dlkSVh% lfefr us fopkjk/khu inksUUkfr ds fy, fuEufyf[kr dlkSfV;ka r; dh& (I) lafu"Bk lansg ls ijs gksa ,oa lfu"Bk izekf.kr gksA (II) ikap o"kksaZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij lfefr }kjk fd;k x;k lexz ewY;kadu fuEukuqlkj gS%& l- vf/kdkjh dk uke lexz ewY;kadu lfefr dh Ø- vuq'kalk 1- Jh Ñr ukjk;.k jke fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ls vuqi;qDr de 2- Jh x.ks'k dqekj fuekZe foHkkxh; tk¡p yafcr can fyQkQk 3- Jh nhid dqekj Hkks;j 2002&03] 03&04] ifjHkze.k esa 04&05 dk xksiuh;
izfrosnu vuqiyC/k
4- Jh egs'k dqekj x<+soky fu/kkZjr ekin.M ls de vuqi;qDr
5- Jh fldy pUnz ine mRÑ"V mi;qDr
6- Jh ckyH;klh vjksjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ls vuqi;qDr
de
7- Jh izse ukjk;.k lsaxj 2000&01] 01&02 dk ifjHkze.k esa
xksiuh; izfrosnu
vuqiyC/k
8- Jh jktdqekj xksusdj cgqr vPNk mi;qDr
7
9- Jh pUnzukFk flag cgqr vPNk mi;qDr
10- Jh ekus'oj dqekj mRÑ"V mi;qDr
pUnzkdj
11- Jh 'kkfyx jke oekZ mRÑ"V mi;qDr
12- Jh ih-lh- c?ksy
13- Jh xtkuan ;kno
14- Jh vo/k izlkn iVsy n.M izHkko'ky gksus ls vuqi;qDr
15- Jh dqys'oj flag c?ksy okafNr la[;k esa
16- Jh ujgjh nkl vf/kdkjh miyC/k gks
tkus ds dkj.k
lfefr }kjk ljy
Øekad 12] 13] 15 ,oa
16 ij n'kkZ;s ukeksa ij
dksbZ vuq'kalk ugha dh
xbZA
17- Jh iznhi dqekj nos mRÑ"V mi;qDr
Vhi%& foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr dh jk; esa ;fn ewY;kadu i=d esa mYysf[kr xksiuh; izfrosnu ds ewY;kadu esa dksbZ ifjorZu fd;k x;k gks rks fd;s tkus okys ifjorZu dk dkj.k ewY;kadu i=d ds fjekdZ dkye esa n'kkZ;k tk,A Jh dqys'oj flag c?ksy dk o"kZ 2002&03 ,oa 2003&04 ds xksiuh; izfrosnu esa "[k" out standing vafdr gS fdUrq leh{kd vf/kdkjh }kjk out standing dk vk/kkj ugha cry;k tkus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr }kjk bu o"kksaZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnu dks "[k"
Js.kh ekU; fd;k x;kA (III) lfefr us r; fd;k fd 5 o"kksaZ ds xksiuh; fjdkMZ dk lexz ewY;kadu de ls de "cgqr vPNk Js.kh" dk gks rFkk fdlh Hkh o"kZ "?k"
Js.kh dk u gksA ;ksX;rk&lg&ofj"Brk ds fl)kar ij gksus okyh inksUufr;ksa ds fy, vkerkSj ij U;wure dlkSVh "cgqr vPNh" (U;wure 13 vad gksuk pkfg,) mDRk 5 o"kksaZ ds vafre 01 o"kZ dk xksiuh; fjdkMZ vfuok;Zr% "cgqr vPNh" Js.kh dk gksuk pkfg,A
(c) xksiuh; fjdkMZ dk lexz oxhZdj.k%
(i) ;g oxhZdj.k ifjf'k"B ,d eas crk;s vk/kkjksa ij fd;k x;kA
(ii) ftu o"kksaZ ds (vafre 01 o"kZ NksM+dj) xksiuh; izfrosnu miyC/k ugha gS vkSj ftuds ckjs esa foHkkx us izek.ki= fn;s gSa fd leLr iz;klksa ds ckn Hkh vc mDr o"kksaZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnu izkIr djuk laHko ugha gS] mu ekeyksa esa fopkj esa fy, x, o"kksaZ ds Bhd ifgys ds vf/kdre 02 o"kZ ds fjdkMZ ns[kdj lfefr us ewY;kadu fd;kA
(iii) ;fn xksiuh; izfrosnu fy[kus okys vf/kdkjh }kjk fyf[kr Hkk"kk fdUgha dkj.kksa ls vLi"V gks rks lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds lexz fjdkMZ dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, lfefr us vLi"V izfrosnuksa dk ;qfDr;qDr ewY;kadu fd;kA
(iv) esfjM&de&lhfu;kfjVh ds vk/kkj ij cukbZ xbZ p;u lwfp;ksa esa inksUufr ;ksX; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke ewY;kadu dh Jsf.k;ka ds ?kVrs vuq Øe esa 'kkfey fd, x, gSa ;Fkk mRÑ"V] cgqr vPNk] vPNkA
9. Admittedly, Shri Moneshwar Kumar Chandrakar, Shri 8 Shalig Ram Verma and Shri Pradeep Kumar Dave were from unreserved category and Shri Sikal Chandra Padam & Shri Chandranath Singh were of the respectively Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioner also participated as unreserved candidate as mentioned in para12 of the DPC though he was for the year 200203 and 200304 graded as "outstanding", but since no reason was assigned he was graded as "[k very good" and since Shri Moneshwar Kumar Chandrakar, Shri Shalig Ram Verma and Shri Pradeep Kumar Dave have secured "outstanding" grading, they were promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture).
10. When the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court, this Court directed for convening of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Departmental Promotion Committee convened its meeting on 29.3.2010 (Annexure P2) and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) and the Departmental Promotion Committee again held that for the year 200203 though he has been given "[k very good" grading, but it has been upgraded by the accepting authority as "outstanding", but the DPC further held that since the governmental circular requires that the person 9 should not be graded "outstanding" unless is of the exceptional merit and performance is not supervised and reason must be assigned for grading "outstanding" and thereafter the DPC held as under: mRd`"V Js.khdj.k rc rd ugha fd;k tk, tc rd miokfnd xq.k ,oa dk;Zlaiknu u ns[kk x;k gks] Js.kh dk vk/kkj Hkh crk;k tkuk pkfg;sA cSBd esa Jh ds-,l- c?ksy] milapkyd d`f"k ds xksiuh; izfrosnu o"kkZr 2000&01 ls 2004&05 dk lexz ewY;kadu fd;k x;kA Jh c?ksy dk o"kZ 2002&03 ds xksiuh; izfrosnu dk lexz ewY;kadu ^[k^ ,oa o"kZ 2003&04 ds xksiuh; izfrosnu dk lexz ewY;kadu ^dk^ ekU; fd;k x;k gSA lexz ewY;kadu i'pkr~ Jh ds-,l- c?ksy dh ;ksX;rk dk lexz :i ls Js.khdj.k & cgqr vPNk gSA ysfdu p;u lwph esa buds uke vkus ds iwoZ gh okafNr la[;k esa vf/kdkjh miyC/k gks tkus ds dkj.k Jh ds-,l- c?ksy dk uke p;u lwph esa ugh vk ldk gSA lgh@& lgh@& lgh@& lgh@& ¼MkW- nqxkZ'kj.k pUnzk½ ¼Mh- ,l- feJk½ ¼izrkijko d`nRr½ ¼;kdqc [ksLl½ foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr lnL; lnL; lnL; v/;{k@lnL; izeq[k lfpo lapkyd] d`f"k mi lfpo N-x- yksd lsok vk;ksx N-x- 'kklu NRrhlx<+] jk;iqj N-x- 'kklu d`f"k foHkkx d`f"k foHkkx ¼vuq-tkfr@vuqtutkfr ds izfrfuf/k½ As such, the DPC has clearly reached to the conclusion that his merit is "very good" and since the officers are already available in desired numbers, therefore, the petitioner cannot be selected.
11.Challenge in this writ petition is that since the petitioner has been graded as "outstanding" for the year 200203 and 200304 by the accepting authority, therefore, it could not have been graded "very good" by the DPC.
10
12. In the matter of Anil Katiyar (Mrs) v. Union of India and others1, ACR of two competing candidates for promotion to the Deputy Government Advocate for three years were considered by DPC of the Union Public Service Commission, one of them was graded "outstanding" for two years and "very good" in ACR for third year, while the other candidate was graded "very good" in ACR's of all three years, but the DPC graded both of them as "very good" and selected respondent No.4, his selection was challenged on the ground that grading for two years of other candidate being "outstanding", he should have been selected and DPC could not have given different grading for him, the Supreme Court has held that having regard to the confidential procedure which is followed by the Union Public Service Commission, it is not possible to hold that decision of DPC in grading the appellant as "very good" is subject to judicial review and consequently, selection of respondent No.4 cannot be challenged.
13. Similarly, in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Kashinath Kher and others2 when the DPC has to consider the confidential report written by the officer of the same rank, the 1 (1997) 1 SCC 280 2 (1996) 8 SCC 762 11 Supreme Court has held that the Committee for promotion has to be independently assess the merit and ability of each candidate from the reports and records consistent with the weightage prescribed in the rules and then to determine the relative merit, ability of officers for promotion.
14. It is common practice that if a particular Government servant is graded "outstanding", reasons are required to be recorded. This practice is in vogue since long. Since that was not recorded by the accepting authority while grading the petitioner as A+ particularly, that is the reason why the DPC has accepted the grading as "very good"
for a period of two years and that is rather the established practice prevalent among the Government Departments which is not in dispute.
15. In the matter of Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and others3, the Supreme Court has clearly held that if two persons are having equal merit, promotion given to senior most is justified and observed as under in para 4: "4. ... In this process, both were adjudged equal and the senior (the respondent in the review petition) was recommended for appointment. Thus, it is obvious that had the Defence Ministry been permitted to choose, the respondent would have enjoyed the post. There is nothing outrageous in picking the senior when both 3 1980 (Supp) SCC 562 12 are otherwise equal. There is a human side to it also. The senior was to retire in a few months and the other hopefully would have his innings."
16. In the matter of Union of India and others v. N.R. Banerjee and others4, the Supreme Court has delineated the guiding principles for the DPC by stating as under: "Claims of eligible candidates have to be considered for promotion objectively and dispassionately, with a sense of achieving manifold purpose: (1) affording an opportunity to the incumbent to improve excellence, honesty, integrity, devotion to public duty; (2) inculcating discipline in service; (3) afford opportunity to every eligible officer within the zone of consideration for promotion to a higher post or office; and (4) ensuring that the Committee regularly meets and considers their claim objectively, impartially with a high sense of responsibility in accordance with the procedure and finalisation of the list in advance so as to fill up vacancies arising in the year from the approved panel without any undue delay. They are salutary principles and form the purpose and the policy behind the rules and the Government should follow them."
17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chhabra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India and another5 has held that the court should not moderate the appraisal and grading given to an officer and while exercising power of judicial review, the court should not venture to assess and appraise the merit or the grading of an officer, and observed as under in para 10: 4 (1997) 9 SCC 287 5 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441 13 "10. It is well known that a Selection Board, while considering the suitability of an officer for promotion to a higher post or rank, takes into consideration several factors and it is not solely based on the Appraisal Report of the controlling officer. The learned Additional Solicitor General produced the proceedings of the Selection Board of 1987 and pointed out that the Selection Board had postponed the promotion of the appellant on the ground, that only one report was available by that time and as such decision was taken to watch the performance of the appellant at least for a year more, to assess his potentiality and suitability for discharging the higher responsibility attached to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. The aforesaid fact has been mentioned in the proceedings of the Selection Board of the year 1987. In such a situation, it was neither possible for the High Court, nor is possible for this Court to act as a court of appeal against the decision of the Selection Board, which has been vested with the power of selection of an officer for being promote to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. No oblique motive has been suggested on behalf of the appellant against any of the members of the Selection Board and there is no reason or occasion for us to infer such motive on the part of the members of the Selection Board for denying the promotion to the appellant with reference to the year 1987. Public interest should be the primary consideration of all Selection Boards, constituted for selecting candidates, for promotion to the higher posts, but it is all the more important in respect of Selection Boards, meant for selecting officers for higher posts in the Indian Air Force. The court cannot encroach over this power, by substituting its own view and opinion. According to us, there is no scope to interfere with the decision of the Selection Board of 1987, merely on the ground that adverse remarks, in the Appraisal Report of 1986, which were placed before the Selection Board in the year 1987, were later expunged."
18. Likewise, in the matter of Union of India and 14 others v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another6, the Supreme Court has held that where the entire service profile was considered by the authorities concerned or by the DPC, court cannot substitute its own view to that of the authorities / DPC sitting under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India, and observed as under in para 29: "29. ... It is a wellknown principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In that view of the matter, we think there is no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the order made by the Government."
19. In the matter of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others 7, the Supreme Court has delineated the scope of judicial review in the consideration made by the competent authority while considering the case of a person for higher promotional post and held as under: "On a careful consideration of the entire materials, it must be held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court forming their unanimous opinion is neither so arbitrary or capricious nor can 6 (2000) 6 SCC 698 7 (2003) 9 SCC 592 15 be said to be so irrational as to shock the conscience of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted."
20. Recently, in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.P. Nayyar8, the Supreme Court again while delineating the scope and grounds for judicial review in a consideration made by the DPC has held that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. The Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 11, 13, 14 and 15 of its report as under: "11. It is settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee.
13. The bias and mala fide acts can be adjudged only on the basis of evidence. The assessment of character roll by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as "Good" cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was biased 8 (2014) 14 SCC 370 16 against the person whose character roll is assessed. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant 3, E.N. Ram Mohan was biased against the respondent. Merely because he assessed the ACR of the respondent as "Good" as against assessment of "Very Good" made by IO it cannot be said that he was biased against the respondent.
14. The Departmental Promotion Committee consists of a Chairman and the members. Even if bias is alleged against the Chairperson, it cannot be presumed that all the members of the Committee were biased. No ground has been made out by the respondent to show as to why the assessment made by the DPC is not to be accepted. The High Court failed to notice the aforesaid fact and wrongly discarded the assessment made by the DPC.
15. It is also settled that the High Court under Article 226 can remit the matter for reconsideration if a person was not properly considered for a promotion for which he was eligible. But it cannot direct to promote a person to the higher post, without giving a plausible ground."
21. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case of S.P. Nayyar (supra) has been followed with approval by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the matter of H.S. Sidhu v. Devendra Bapna and others9.
22. Following and applying the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforecited cases, to the facts of the present case, in the present case, it would be quite vivid that the DPC has objectively and fairly considered the case of the petitioner and other candidates and 9 (2016) 1 SCC 495 17 assessed the petitioner as "very good" by taking his ACR's for the year 20022003 and 20032004 as "very good" in place of "outstanding" as no reasons were recorded by the accepting authority while upgrading ACR's of the petitioner as "outstanding" which is consistent practice in vogue in writing the ACR and as such, assessment/grading is also province and jurisdiction of the DPC as held by the Supreme Court in Anil Katiyar (supra) and the petitioner has rightly been assessed as "very good"
by the DPC while assessing the merit and thereafter in the review DPC also, the DPC has rightly been graded the petitioner as "very good" and finding that in unreserved candidate last considered and promoted candidate respondent No.4 has been assessed "outstanding", the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture), in the considered opinion of this Court, there is neither any perversity nor any illegality established by the petitioner in the proceeding of the Departmental Promotion Committee/Review Departmental Promotion Committee to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, it is held that the petitioner has 18 failed to make out a case for interference in the recommendation made by the DPC and review DPC for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/