Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sunil B.Shukre, Firdosh P.Pooniwalla, JJ.
Rahul Pramod Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Registrar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2850 of 2023
Decided On : 05-10-2023
PROMOTION - Assistant Sec. Officer Selection Process - Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000; Right to Information Act, 2005; Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The court analyzed the legality of the promotion process under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, emphasizing that promotions should be based on seniority-cum-suitability. The court interpreted the criteria for suitability, which included unpublished guidelines regarding Annual Confidential Reports and viva-voce scores, and concluded that the process was not arbitrary or unconstitutional. The court upheld the decision of the selection committee, stating that the petitioner did not meet the minimum passing marks required for promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Clerk, sought promotion to the post of Assistant Sec. Officer, claiming eligibility under Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000. After participating in a selection process, he was not selected, as seven junior candidates were promoted instead. The petitioner challenged the legality of the selection process, arguing it violated his fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner participated in the selection process without protest and failed to challenge the rejection of his appeal against the selection process. The court concluded that the selection criteria, including unpublished guidelines, were valid and that the petitioner did not meet the minimum passing marks required for promotion.
Issues: Whether the selection process for the promotion to Assistant Sec. Officer was illegal or unconstitutional, and whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion based on the criteria set forth in the Service Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suitability for promotion could be determined by criteria beyond those explicitly stated in Rule 26, including Annual Confidential Reports and viva-voce performance. The court emphasized that the Chief Justice had the authority to establish guidelines for assessing suitability, which were not required to be publicly disclosed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the selection process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the established guidelines, and the petitioner did not qualify for promotion due to insufficient marks.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
FIRDOSH P.POONIWALLA, J. - By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks an order that the process of promotion initiated by the Respondents is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under the Constitution of India. The Petitioner further seeks a direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sec. Officer as per the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 ("the Service Rules"). Further, the Petitioner also seeks that he may be granted deemed date of 10/2/2022 with all arrears and other consequential service benefits.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk. On 9/7/2013, Respondent No.1 issued an appointment order for the post of Clerk to the Petitioner and by an order dtd. 19/7/2013 posted the Petitioner as a Clerk on the Appellate Side of this Court with effect from 18/7/2013.
3. The Petitioner completed his probation period on 6/10/2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner participated in a Lower Standard Departmental Examination in 2015 as per the Service Rules and secured 225 out of 300 marks.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner in the Petition that, in 2018, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sec. Officer since, as per Rule 26 of the Service Rules, he was having experience for more than 5 years, was holding a degree and had successfully passed a Lower Standard Departmental Examination.
5. Respondent No.2 published a Circular dtd. 1/2/2022 whereby Respondent No.2 call twenty candidates for viva-voce for the post of Assistant Sec. Officer. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the said Circular, Respondent No.2 did not mention any eligibility criteria or the terms and conditions of the selection process for the post of Assistant Sec. Officer. It is further the case of the Petitioner that he was under the impression that the selection for the said post was conducted as per Rule 26 of the Service Rules and he participated in the viva-voce on 5/2/2023.
6. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 published a Notice dtd. 10/2/2022 whereby Respondent No.2 published a list of selected candidates for the post of Assistant Sec. Officer. The Petitioner's name was not included in the list of selected candidates. It is the case of the Petitioner that, from the ten persons so selected, seven persons were junior to the Petitioner. In other words, seven persons junior to the Petitioner were promoted to the post of Assistant Sec. Officer.
7. Being aggrieved by the said Notice dtd. 10/2/2022, the Petitioner made a representation dtd. 11/2/2022 to Respondent No.1. On 11/2/2022, the Petitioner also filed an 'Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act'), seeking information regarding the criteria for selection to the post of Assistant Sec. Officer in this Court and other related information regarding the said selection process.
8. By a letter dtd. 22/2/2022 addressed to the Petitioner by Respondent No.2, the Petitioner was informed that his representation dtd. 11/2/2022 was placed before the Registrar General of this Court, and, on considering it, the same was rejected. Further, by a letter dtd. 22/2/2022, the Petitioner received a response to his Application under the RTI Act. By the said letter, the Petitioner was informed that the selection for the post of Assistant Sec. Officer was based on marks allotted to the Annual Confidential Reports of the last four years (20 marks) and marks allotted in viva-voce (30 marks). The Petitioner was also informed that the minimum passing marks are 25. Further, the Petitioner was informed that he had secured 24 marks out of the total 50 marks i.e. 10 marks in his Annual Confidential Reports and 14 marks in viva-voce, against the minimum passing marks of 25. It should be noted that, at page 45 of the Petition, the Petitioner has attached a letter dtd. 31/5/2021 issued to him by the Assistant Registrar (Personnel) of this Court, whereby, at his request, the Peti
The court established that the criteria for promotion can include unpublished guidelines and that the Chief Justice has the authority to determine suitability for promotion, which may extend beyond t....
Promotions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the communication of adverse remarks, and seniority should be respected unless merit and ability are clearly superior.
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
The respondents were obligated to communicate to the petitioners all the APARs irrespective of whether they were adverse or not.
Promotions must be based on seniority subject to fitness, not solely on merit or ACR grading, as per the applicable rules.
Uncommunicated ACR gradings below promotion benchmark ('good' vs 'very good') cannot be considered and must be deemed as meeting benchmark; renders decisions arbitrary violating Art.14 and natural ju....
The importance of communicating adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the employee and the impact of such entries on promotion.
The selection committee's discretion in assessing candidates based on Annual Confidential Reports and service particulars is valid, and the writ court's role is to ensure lawful decision-making.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
