JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The petitioner is a degree holder in Electrical Engineering and he came to be appointed as Sub-Engineer on work charge in November 1969. He was subsequently appointed as Junior Engineer on 5th October 1971 and continued to work under respondent No. 2 till 1977. On 12th January 1977, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. His case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was considered by the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22nd January, 1982 alongwith other employees and the Committee concluded that the petitioner was not fit to be promoted alongwith others. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 12th July, 1982 and the same was replied by the Establishment Officer of the respondent Board on 10th September, 1982 informing him that his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (E M) was considered alongwith other similarly placed employees and the Committee did not find the petitioner fit for promotion on account of his unsatisfactory report. The petitioner subsequently went on submitting representation on 29th November, 1982 and on 29-12-1992. The Subordinate Engineers' Association also submitted a representation on 8-12-1982 to the Chairman of the respondent Board. It is evident from the record that the petitioner's case was again considered by the competent Selection Committee in its meeting on 18th June, 1983 for promotion to the Deputy Executive Engineer alongwith others and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by Order dated 21st June 1983. As the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion by the Board alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are admittedly junior to the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the promotion order dated 21-6-1983 and also prayed for directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to promote him. It is also evident from the additional reply filed by the Board that the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by Order dated 18-5-1985 and he resumed the charge of the said post on 12-6-1985. The only short question remains to be examined by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to be given deemed date of promotion alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were promoted by Order dated 21st June 1983 (Exhibit K).

2.The promotion to the higher posts including the post of Deputy Executive Engineer are covered under Regulation 22 of the M.S.E.B. Classification and Recruitment Regulations and Clause A of the said rule reads thus :

(a) No employee shall be promoted to a higher post unless his record shows that he possesses the necessary positive qualifications for the higher post such as personality, qualifications, initiative, strength of character and readiness to assume individual responsibility.

(b) No employee who possesses the positive qualifications referred to in (a) above shall be passed over by a person junior to him unless the latter has, in addition, exceptional ability or qualifications.

(c) In assessing the merits of employees on comparative basis for the purpose of Nos. (a) and (b) above, the ability, energy, initiative, integrity and sense of responsibility, etc. of the employees concerned should be taken into consideration over a series of years wherever possible and judgment should formed after carefully considering reports of at least 3 different superior officers wherever possible.

3.The initial affidavit filed in reply by the Board opposes the petition only on the ground that the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22-1-1982 as well as on 18-6-1983 found the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of his service record and that is the only reason for denying him promotion. The affidavit does not explain as to how respondent Nos. 4 to 6 possessed exceptional ability or qualifications when the petitioner's claim was passed over. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the Board has made av

Click Here to Read the rest of this document