Promotion decisions in administrative matters can prioritize merit over seniority, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the decision if the assessment is objective.

JUDGMENT :

[Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :

1. Rule.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with the consent of parties.

3. The petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order denying him promotion to the post of Registrar and soliciting direction to confer the benefits of promotion from 09.02.2012 with further consequential reliefs.

4. The petitioner was appointed as English Section Writer on 31.01.1979 at District and Sessions Court, Nanded. He was made permanent in due course of time. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 01.07.1988 and thereafter to the post of Assistant Superintendent on 26.08.1996. He was further promoted to the post of Superintendent on 01.09.2005. He was due for the further promotion to the post of Registrar being senior most eligible candidate. However respondent no. 4 was promoted to the post of Registrar on 09.02.2012 . Against the denial of promotion, appeal was preferred under Rule 21 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules,1979 (for brief ‘Rules of 1979’) to Registrar General. By order dated 24.09.2012 appeal was dismissed which is the cause for the petitioner to approach this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by Appellate Authority is against principles of natural Justice. Without hearing petitioner and without making available the relevant record to him, impugned order was passed. It is further submitted that the relevant document like minutes of meeting of the Advisory Committee were withheld. Appeal was decided in a non- transparent manner. He would further submit that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is perverse as no reasons are assigned. It is a single line order. It is further submitted that the appellate authority failed to adhere to the parameters laid down in rule 23 (2) of Rules of 1979.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of promotion of the respondent no. 4 is against paragraph no. 580 (ii) (c) of the Civil Manual. For the irrelevant reasons the petitioner has been denied the promotion. It is further submitted that for the first time in affidavit-in-reply the respondents are supplying fresh reasons for denying promotion which is impermissible. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge and Another in Writ Petition No. 2534 of 2000 reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J 750

7. In response to the submissions of the petitioner, the contesting respondent nos. 2 and 3 represented by Mr.Godbole refers to affidavit-in-reply. He submits that the promotion given to the respondent no. 4 was perfectly in accordance with paragraph no. 580 (ii) (c) of the Civil Manual. He would submit that respondent no. 4 was found to be more eligible on merits than the petitioner. The advisory committee made objective scrutiny in which petitioner secured 23.50 out of 50 marks and respondent no. 2 secured 37 out of 50 marks. Para wise remarks were submitted by learned Principal District Judge, Nanded before the appellate authority. An official note was put up by Registrar (Inspection-I) before learned Guardian Judge. Considering it, dismissal of the appeal was approved on 24.09.2012. It is further submitted that minutes of the meeting of the advisory committee was supplied to the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that there is no procedural illegality or perversity in granting promotion to the respondent no. 4 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent no. 1 adopts the submissions of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 though served did not enter into appearance.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of this court in the matter of Anil Kumar Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge and Another (supra). Respondent nos. 2 and 3 relied on the judgment of this court in the m