even before they wore so communicated, they were tpken into consideration by the. Departmental Promotion Committee on August 22, 1969 in assessing the respective merit of the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 and preparing the panel in the order of merit. Therefore, it cannot but be slid that the said assessment, gradaticn and preparation of the panel were vitiated as being in contravention of principles of fairplay and natural justice.

( 24 ) IN answer to the above, Mr. Frank Anthony, learned Counsel for respondents I to 4, 6 and 8, as well as Mr. Anand (respondent 7) who appeared in person, contended firstly that the gradation was made and the panel was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee on September 22, 1969 and the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on October 13, 1969, and that the writ petition filed by the petitioner on July 13, 1972 was very much belated and should be rejected on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. There is no force in this contention. It is true that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on October 13, 1969. But, the various subsequent events which have been set out in the course of the narration of the facts earlier in this judgment show that the petitioner did not sleep over the matter till July 1972. He made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner (Water) on January 12, 1970 regarding the adverse remarks. As he did not receive any reply, he sent another representation on May 5, 1970 to the Chairman, Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee, and a representation also to the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation on May 16, 1970. The Commissioner sent a reply on May 27, 1970 stating that the petitioner's representation would be considered on merits. It appears that the representation of the petitioner was REFERRED TO by Shri B. R. Tarnta, Deputy Commissioner, Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee, to Shri R. N. Chopra and Shri P. N. Bahl by whom the adverse remarks were made. The said officers sent replies on June 15, 1970 and July 21, 1970 respectively. Shri Chopra stated in his letter that he would have no objection if the competent authority decided to accept the petitioner's representation and expunged the adverse remarks, while Shri Bahl stated in his letter that he had no objection if the adverse entry made by him was considered as something not to damage the interests of the petitioner. On October 21, 1970, Shri B. R. Tarnta, Deputy Commissioner, informed the petitioner by a letter that the adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Reports relating to the petitioner were toned down on the basis of the comments received from the reporting/reviewing officers, and that a suitable note to that effect had been given in the confidential reports. On receiving the said information, the petitioner wrote a letter on January 19, 1971 to the Deputy Commissioner (Water) requesting that in view of the aforesaid toning down the matter may be brought to the notice of the Union Public Service Commission as well as the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee so that necessary action regarding his gradation and seniority may be taken. The matter was, however, not REFERRED TO to the Service Commission, but the Commissioner recommended to the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee the appointment of the petitioner as Chief Engineer (Water) on an ad hoc basis for another period of one year with effect from January 12, 1971. The said recommendation was accepted by the aforesaid committee and the petitioner was appointed as recommended. Subsequently, on May 24, 1972, the Commissioner, without recommending the name of any particular person informed the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee that the term of the petitioner would be expiring on June II, 1972, and that the Committee should consider the question of filling up the post of Chief Engineer (Water) for a period of one year with effect from the said date. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document