ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned counsel. While the appellants and respondents - Biswajit Patnaik and Jagannath Prasad Mishra were continuing as Drug Inspectors, four vacancies for the post of Assistant Drugs Controller, (Junior Class I) have arisen. Preceding regular appointment, the Government constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee which had considered and recommended the cases of respondents for ad hoc promotion to the posts and the Government had appointed the respondents and referred the matter to the Public Service Commission for recommendation for regular appointments. Before recommending to the PSC, since no rules or the criteria for consideration was prescribed, the Government have decided to adopt "merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority" as principle to consider the case of the persons for promotion. The names of 12 candidates, including ad hoc promotees were sent to the PSC for consideration. We are informed that since two of them were already promoted to the higher posts of Grade I Deputy Drug Controllers, their cases were not considered. Two of them were found to be unfit. The PSC had thought over the feasibility to apply the principle of "merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority"; secured the statutory rules applicable to similar selection posts in other departments and after due deliberation adopted the aforesaid principle. Thereafter, the PSC has evolved the procedure, as stated in the affidavit filed by the PSC pursuant to our order dated 4-8-1994, thus:

"He (Chairman the OPSC) explained the system of evaluation of CC Rs adopted by the PSC. The Commission is considering the reports of 6 years immediately preceding the time of selection. While evaluating the CSR they are graded and awarded marks as follows:

(i) Outstanding----------10---marks

(ii) Very good------------9------"

(iii) Good----------------8------"

(iv) Satisfactory---------7------"

(v) Average---------------6------"

Adverse remarks are not given any marks and no minus marks are given. However, when the assessment contains a critical observation along with other favourable comments the Commission takes an overall view of the assessment and grades the CR as Average, Satisfactory, Good etc. However, when there is an adverse remark indicating that the integrity is doubtful, the officer is not considered suitable for promotion. Similarly if there are adverse remarks for two years the officer is not generally considered suitable.

The final grading is decided by taking the average of the marks awarded for six years. For final grading categories: A, B, C, D, E, are adopted. This is done in the following manner.

9.8 marks and above: Outstanding - Category A

7.8 to 9.79: Good and Very Good - Category B

6.8 to 7.79: Satisfactory - Category C

6 to 6.79: Average - Category B

Less than 6: Unsuitable

In the final placement those who come within Category A are placed in the top followed by those in Categories B, C & D in each category the inter se seniority as per gradation list will be maintained. Those graded as Good and Very Good are both placed in the same Category B as the Commission follows the principle that an officer graded Very Good should not supersede another graded as Good.

In the case of the highest posts in the cadre and two levels of posts immediately below it (for example the post of Director and Joint Director, Level I and Level II) the Commission consider an officer suitable for promotion only if he is in Category B i.e. his final grading must at least be good. Following the above principle the Commission has evaluated the CC Rolls of the officers within the zone of consideration for the post ofAssistant Controller as in the statement placed at Flag X. Four officers Shri B.C. Panda, Shri S.K. Das, Shri R.N. Sahu and Shri G.S. Mohapatra come within B Category and hence they have been recommended against the four vacancies."

4. Adhering to the evolved criteria, considering the cases of the candidates, the