The promotion policy required promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, and the letter dated 28th August, 1998 did not set a cut-off date for recommendations.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant and the respondent No.2 were both Assistants in the Panchayat Department of the State of Haryana. The contentious issue between the two of them is the post of Legal Officer (Panchayat) in the District Headquarters.

3. On 28th August, 1998, a letter was issued to all Deputy Commissioners, all District Development and Panchayat officers, all Block Development and Panchayat officers and the Principal of the State Community Development Training Centre inviting them to forward names of officers/officials for filling up one post of Legal Officer (Panchayat) which was lying vacant at the District Headquarters. The post was to be filled up by promotion amongst the eligible Officers/officials of the Development and Panchayat Department. The qualifications prescribed for the post were (a) Law Graduate from a recognized University; and (b) five years’ experience in a ministerial/executive post in the Development and Panchayat Department. The letter required each of the addressees to for ward the names of officers/officials who fulfilled the aforesaid qualifications and had "good service record" and who were desirous of being considered. The circular ends with the following words:-

"Your recommendations should reach the undersigned within one month from the date of issue of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you do not have any recommendations to offer in he matter."

4. In response to the letter dated 28th August, 1998, four applications were received from different officers by the Panchayat Department. The respondent No.2’s name which had been forwarded by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kurukshetra was one of these four applicants. Apart from the respondent No.2, the other three applications were rejected by the Department on the ground that those candidates were not qualified. The respondent No.2’s application, however, was not accompanied by the ACRs of all the ten preceding years, and ACRs for three years, namely, 1993-94, 1996-97 and 1997-98 were not available. In addition, there was an adverse entry in the ACR of the respondent No.2 for the year 1995-96 which was communicated to the respondent No.2 in November, 1998. His representation for deletion of the executive’s remarks ultimately was allowed and the adverse entry in the respondent No.2’s ACR was expunged in December, 1999.

5. The appellant who is admittedly senior to the respondent No.2 was not recommended for promotion initially as he did not have the necessary academic qualification for Legal Officer (Panchayat). He obtained the degree ultimately in January, 1999 while the process of selection to the post of Legal Officer (Panchayat) was pending consideration. The appellant’s application was also forwarded to the Department. The Department considered the candidature of both the respondent No.2 as well as the appellants for the post and then selected the appellant on the ground that he was senior to the respondent No.2. This selection was ultimately completed on 12th September, 2000 and the appellant joined the post.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a writ petition in which he challenged the promotion of the appellant as Legal Officer. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court which quashed the appellant’s promotion on the ground that the appellant was ineligible on the date within which the recommendations for promotion were required to be made in terms of the letter dated 28th August, 1998. The High Court also held that since the respondent No.2 had obtained his Degree in Law earlier than the appellant, the appellant could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Legal Officer. The respondent authority was, accordingly, directed to consider the respondent No.2’s claim for promotion to the post of Legal Officer (Panchayat) and appoint him to the post if he was found otherwise fit and suitable.

7. At the time of entertaining the special leave petition filed by the appellant impugning the decision