Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Lalnuntluanga S/o R. Sangkunga – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Cooperation Department – Respondent
WP (C) No. 72 of 2023
Decided On : 27-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: F. Lalengliana.
For the Respondents: Lalnunhlui, B. Lalramenga, Victor L. Ralte.
IMPORTANT POINT
The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, requiring adherence to established procedures and fair assessment of all eligible candidates.
Headnote:
Promotion - Managerial Position - Mizoram State Cooperative Marketing & Consumers' Federation Ltd. Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2020 - The Court found that the promotion process violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 6, which requires merit-based assessment and consideration of all eligible candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Manager in MIZOFED, arguing that he was denied a fair consideration for promotion despite being senior and eligible, as the selection process did not follow the required rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court concluded that the selection process for the promotion was flawed as it excluded the petitioner without proper justification, violating his fundamental right to be considered for promotion under the applicable rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied his right to be considered for promotion to the post of Manager due to a flawed selection process that did not adhere to the established rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and the selection committee must assess all eligible candidates based on merit and the parameters set out in the relevant rules.
Result: The promotion of respondent No. 5 was set aside, and a review selection process was ordered to include the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2; Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4 and Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.
2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to an order, dated 03.04.2023, promoting the respondent No. 5, herein, to the post of Manager in Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), w.e.f. 01.05.2023.
3. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5, herein, were recruited as Manager Grade-III of Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), on 01.03.2000. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner, herein, was confirmed on completion of his probationary period vide order, dated 20.11.2007. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5, were, thereafter, considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, in MIZOFED and on such consideration, they being found to be so eligible; they were promoted as Deputy Manager in Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), vide order, dated 14.06.2011. For the purpose of such promotion; the petitioner was placed above the respondent No. 5, on merits.
4. The next promotional avenue for the incumbents in the post of Deputy Manager in Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), happens to be the post of Manager. The incumbent in the post of Manager on being so promoted to the next higher post of Deputy General Manager; a vacancy having arisen, the authorities of Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), initiated a process for filling-up the vacant post of Manager, by way of promotion. In the course of such consideration; the respondent No. 5, herein, was issued with a notice, dated 30.03.2023, requiring her to appear before the Selection Committee for an interview on 03.04.2023. The petitioner although was placed above the respondent No. 5, on merits, in the cadre of Deputy Manager; he was not issued with any such notice requiring him to also appear for the interview slated for promotion to the post of Manager in Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED).
5. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee; the competent authority, vide order, dated 03.04.2023; promoted the respondent No. 5, herein, to the post of Manager w.e.f. 01.05.2023.
6. The petitioner, on coming to learn about such promotion being effected in the case of his junior i.e. the respondent No. 5, herein; proceeded to submit a representation in the matter on 06.04.2023, by contending therein, that he was deprived of his due promotion and the respondent No. 5, herein, who was admittedly junior to him ought not to have given the such promotion, without a selection process being undertaken and accordingly, prayed that he also be granted promotion to the post of Manager. The said representation having not been considered by the respondent authorities; the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instituting the present proceeding.
7. Mr. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts narrated hereinabove; has referred to the provisions of the Mizoram State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED), Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015, wherein, in Rule 6 thereof; the procedure to be followed for promotion from the lower cadre to the next higher cadre, has been set-out. The learned counsel has submitted that the provisions of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 2015, was not followed in the matter and the case of the petitioner, admittedly, was not so considered, in the manner as required under the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2015, and accordingly, the petitioner was denied of his fundamental right for bei
