The Departmental Promotion Committee should consider confidential records in accordance with principles of natural justice, providing the concerned individual an opportunity to make representations.

1. The petitioner, who was a Statistical Inspector, was promoted as a Research Officer in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics and was posted as Economic Investigator in the Rural Industrial Project, Kozhikode, as per the order dated 18 21963 passed by the first respondent (see Ex. P-1). Two other persons, namely V. K. Paran Unni and Bhaskara Menon, were also promoted as Research Officers under that order. The petitioner states in his affidavit:

"In the selection list of the P. S. C., there were nine persons junior to the petitioner and they were also appointed as Statistical Inspectors. Since 18 21963 these juniors as well as 9 others were promoted as Research Officers. Except the said Sri Paran Unni and the petitioner all the other incumbents are now functioning as Research Officers."

The petitioner and Paran Unni were reverted as Research Assistants by an order passed on 23 61964 by the first respondent (Ex. P-2). The reason why that order was passed is stated in the order as follows:

"Sri K. K. Karunakaran and Sri V. K. Paran Unni provisional Research Officers on Rs. 200 to 400 now working as Economic Investigator, Rural Industries Project, Alleppey and Kozhikode respectively are reverted to the Subordinate cadre of Research Assistant/ Statistical Inspectors in this Bureau as they are not considered fit for higher post for the present.

The petitioner's complaint is that this order was passed on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and that the Committee relied mainly upon the confidential record of the petitioner for the years 1961 to 1963 for their recommendation but that the confidential records were not prepared in accordance with the Government Orders governing the subject. It was contended that the adverse remarks against the petitioner in the confidential records were not communicated to him and that he was given no opportunity to make his representations. The petitioner therefore contends that Ex. P-2 order was passed against the principles of natural justice.

2. It is not necessary for me to consider the contention raised by the petitioner that the adverse remarks in his confidential record of 1958 were communicated to him only in 1964 and therefore the remarks in that records should not have been used against him, as it is clear from the counter affidavit on behalf of the State that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not look into that record for making the recommendation. The main ground raised by the petitioner, as I have already said, is that the Departmental Promotion Committee erred in looking into the adverse remarks in his confidential records for the years 1961 to 1963 as those records were not maintained in accordance with the principles laid down in the various Government Orders concerning the subject.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 4 61965, that the petitioner's name was included in the select list, and that on the basis of the advice of the Committee the petitioner has been promoted as Research Officer in the proceedings dated 5 61965 of the first respondent and therefore the question raised in the writ petition has become moot. But petitioner's counsel submitted that his rank among the Research Officers would depend on the decision of the question whether he was entitled to be promoted earlier and therefore it is necessary to decide the question whether Ex. P-2 order was properly passed. The question to be considered is whether the Departmental Promotion Committee was right in looking into the adverse remarks against the petitioner in his confidential records for the years 1961 to 1963 when admittedly they were not communicated to him as enjoined by the Government Orders and he was given no opportunity to make his representations concerning them. The learned Government Pleader did not dispute the fact that the adverse remarks entered in those records were not communi