Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

47 It is common ground that this Writ Petition was earlier dismissed, but later on, by the order of the Honourable Supreme Court, it came to be restored to this Court's file. The Petitioner, thus, in several paragraphs of this affidavit relies upon the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Then, he refers to the master chart for promotions to the post of General Manager and submits that there is an arbitrary and illegal adjustment of marks in the garb of Potential Assessment (PA).

80 To support all the above contentions, Mr. Buch relies on the extract from the commentary of Late H.M.Seervai on the Constitution, Volume-I, Third Edition. He would submit that the way the marks are allotted, reflects clear arbitrariness and discrimination. That violates the mandate of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 81 In addition, Mr. Buch relies on the following judgments :-

(i) Govind Prasad vs. R.G.Prasad and others, 1994 (I) LLJ 943.

109 It is alleged that instead of prescribed criteria, new promotion criteria was introduced and adopted by the DPC through the back door method without amending the above referred Regulations and two very vital parameters (experience and interview) were eliminated and an arbitrary tool of PA with 50% weightage in total marks (with rider of 60% qualifying marks) was introduced.

110 The Petitioner contended that in terms of the PA, the DPC was given arbitrary and unguided power to award marks resulting in *63* wp543o08groupDBmainseat.doc granting or depriving the promotions to the candidates irrespective of merit. The entire selection, thus, is dependent upon these arbitrary marks given by the DPC under the PA column irrespective of performance/ assessment of candidates in Q plus PAR.