Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 1958
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
S.J. VAZIFDAR & U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
Bramhanand M. Desai
Versus
Chief Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, Electricity Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 33 of 2006
Decided on : 11-10-2012
For the Petitioner:A.F. Diniz, & Ryan Menezes, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Ms. P. Sawant, Addl. Govt. Advocate, R3, H.D. Naik, R4, Nitin Sardessai & L. Raghunandan, Advocates.
The main legal principle established is that the DPC must assess the suitability of officers for promotion based on their service record, with particular reference to the confidential reports for the years equal to the required qualifying service, as per Clause 6.2.1 of the Guidelines for the D.P.C.
Headnote:
Promotion - Consideration of Confidential Reports - Review DPC and Consideration of Promotion in Accordance with Clause 6.2.1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the impugned order promoting respondent No.4 to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department and to direct a fresh DPC for consideration of the petitioner for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DPC considered the confidential reports (CRs) for only the 5 preceding years, instead of considering the CRs for the required qualifying service of 12 years for both the petitioner and respondent No.4. The court directed respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to hold a review DPC and consider the promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.4 in accordance with Clause 6.2.1.
Issues: The main issue was the incorrect consideration of CRs by the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Clause 6.2.1 of the Guidelines for the D.P.C., which required the DPC to assess the suitability of officers for promotion based on their service record, with particular reference to the CRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service.
Final Decision: The court directed a review DPC to be held and for the promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.4 to be considered in accordance with Clause 6.2.1. The appointment of respondent No.4 was to be subject to the decision of the review DPC and the respondents, and the process was to be completed within 12 weeks.
S.J. Vazifdar, J.
1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State of Goa, Goa Public Service Commission and one U.L. Salunke, Executive Engineer (Civil), Electricity Department respectively. The petitioner has sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th February, 2005, by which respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department. The petitioner has also sought a writ directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a fresh DPC and consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post in accordance with law with effect from 11th February, 2005.
2. It is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner. This petition can be disposed of on one ground alone. It is agreed that the said post is a promotional post; that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were Assistant Engineers and that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were entitled to be considered for promotion. It is also agreed that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are Diploma holders. Accordingly, the qualifying service in respect of both of them is 12 years. Lastly, it is also agreed that while considering such candidates for promotion to the said post, clause 6.2.1 of the Guidelines for the D.P.C. Applies. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:
“Confidential Reports
6.2.1 Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. Hence -
(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the DPC should see the record with particular reference to the CRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service. (If more than one CR has been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant year shall be considered together as the CR for one year).
(emphasis supplied.)
3. The DPC, however, considered the CRs in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.4 only for the 5 preceding years. The DPC ought to have considered the CRs for 12 years which is the required qualifying service in respect the petitioner and respondent No.4.
4. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of by following order:
(I) Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to hold a review DPC and to consider the promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.4 in accordance with the said Clause
6.2.1 set out above. The Government shall act in accordance with the decision of the DPC and fix the effective date of promotion in accordance with law.
(II) Till the decision of the DPC and the Government, the appointment of respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed. The same shall be subject to the decision of the review DPC and the respondents.
(III) The respondents and the DPC are requested to complete the process within 12 weeks.
No order as to costs.
