When comparing ACRs for promotion, upgrade gradings by one level for officer's periods on higher post versus lower post to enable fair assessment; petitioner qualifies post-upgrade.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the promotion order dated 30 November 2022 by which Respondent No.4 is promoted to the post of Chief General Manager (HR) [CGM (HR)]. Petitioner seeks a direction for effecting promotions to the post of CGM (HR) in accordance with benchmark prescribed in the Administrative Circular dated 9 August 2021. Petitioner seeks his own promotion to the post of CGM (HR).

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner came to initially appointed on the post of Deputy Manager (HR) in the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). The operations of MSEB were later trifurcated into 3 separate companies, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) being one of them. Petitioner became officer of MSEDCL. He applied for selection for direct recruitment to the post of Senior Manager (HR) and was appointed as such in the year 2006. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the position of Assistant General Manager (HR). In the year 2014, direct recruitment on the post of General Manager (HR) was conducted by the method of In- Basket Selection Process (IBSP) in which Petitioner and Respondent No.4 participated. According to the Petitioner, he secured merit position No.1 in the said selection and was accordingly appointed as General Manager (HR) in the year 2014. The next hierarchical promotional post is the position of Chief General Manager (HR) which is apparently an isolated post. As per the Recruitment Rules, General Manager (HR) with 2 years of service are eligible to be promoted to the position of CGM (HR). The officer occupying the position of CGM (HR) retired on 31 October 2019. According to the Petitioner, though he was eligible to be promoted as CGM (HR) in the year 2019, selection process was not conducted for considerable period of time. According to the Petitioner, Administrative Circular No. 628 dated 9 August 2021 was issued reducing the benchmark for promotion to the post of CGM (HR) from 21 marks to 20 marks allotted on the basis of ACRs for the last 5 years. Petitioner claims to have secured benchmark of 20 marks and was looking forward to his promotion. However, since the selection process was not being conducted, the Petitioner has filed the present petition on/or about 28 November 2022 seeking a prayer for holding of selection process for promotion to the post of CGM (HR) in accordance with Administrative Circular No.628 dated 9 August 2021. Petitioner expressed an apprehension in the Petition that Respondent No.4 was being favoured and was likely to be promoted by superseding the Petitioner.

4. Few days before filing of the petition, Respondent No.2 issued Administrative Circular No. 649 dated 4 November 2022 enhancing the benchmark for promotion to the post of CGM (HR) from 20 marks to 21 marks. By applying the revised benchmark, the case of the Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of CGM (HR). However, since Petitioner secur