Selection processes for promotion must maintain transparency and objectivity; determining candidate suitability through a pre-ordained consensus rather than through merit-based assessment of individual performance against prescribed criteria is legally unsustainable and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 17 and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel and Dy. SGI for the respondent nos. 5 to 16.

2. The petitioner was posted as a Manager (Civil), DAM Division, Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project managed by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited (NHPCL) at the time of filing of this writ petition. The NHPCL is a category one company under the aegis of the Ministry of Power, Government of India. The petitioner had originally joined his services as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 2004.

3. In the year 2007-2008, an internal induction was conducted for promotions to the post of Trainee Engineer/Trainee Officer, and the petitioner had participated along with other candidates in the said process. The petitioner was, however, denied promotion. Aggrieved, he had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking relief. Initially, the relief sought was denied by the learned Single Judge, but thereafter, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by the order dated 16.11.2015.

4. The petitioner was thereafter granted the benefits of promotion to the post of Trainee Engineer with retrospective effect from 01.07.2008. The petitioner served as an Engineer (Civil) E02A from 01.07.2009 to 31.03.2014, as Assistant Manager (Civil) from 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2016, as Deputy Manager (Civil) from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2018 and as Manager (Civil) from 01.04.2018 till the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted promotions as Manager (Civil) E-V retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2018. As such, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for promotion from the cadre of Manager (Civil) E-V to the cadre of Senior Manager (Civil) E-VI on completion of 4 years of service as Manager (Civil) E-V, i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2022. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had also pursued a Post Graduate Diploma in Energy Management (Renewable Energy) through a Distance Education Program, pursuant to an approval granted by the competent authority vide order dated 24.07.2020.

5. When the respondents took up a process for consideration of eligible incumbents for promotion to the cadre of Senior Manager (Civil) E-VI, the petitioner was also called for an interview, which was scheduled on 10.03.2022 through video conferencing. The results of the promotional process carried out by the respondent authorities were not favourable to the petitioner, inasmuch as he was not afforded promotions, whereas 12 other Executives were promoted from the cadre of Manager (Civil) E-V to Senior Manager (Civil) E-VI. The petitioner thereafter made his enquiries and based on replies to the applications filed under the Right to Information Act, it came to his knowledge that the petitioner's name was reflected at Sl. No. 13 and that he had scored 56 marks out of 60 marks for his Performance Appraisal Report, 10 marks out of a maximum 10 marks for locational weightage, 0 marks out of 5 marks for additional qualification, 0 marks out of a maximum 10 marks for seniority weightage and 6 marks