ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of office order dated 1.1.2020 (Annexure-P-22), whereby respondent No.3-Ms. Anjori Kapoor, on the recommendation of the review Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher), came to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (SE), ahead of the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main relief(s):

“i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue writ of certiorari quashing order dated 1.1.2020 (Annexure-P-22), minutes of meeting of the review DPC held for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) dated 9.8.2019 (Annexure-P-19) resultant minutes of meeting of DPC dated 16.8.2019 (Annexure P-20) and review of review DPC minutes of meeting dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-P-21).

(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconvene the DPC and look into all the ACRs of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and after a comparative evaluation of all the ACRs of the respondent No.3 objectively alongwith the order of up gradation passed by the ACS (Housing) conduct appropriate DPC.

(iii) That this Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to not to hold further DPC for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer based upon the review DPC dated 30.12.2019 and order dated 1.1.2020.”

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand, are that respondent No.3- Ms. Anjori Kapoor, joined the respondent- Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority ( hereinafter referred to as “the HIMUDA”) on 18.10.1996, against the post of Assistant Engineer. Subsequent to aforesaid appointment of respondent No.3, petitioner herein also came to be appointed as Assistant Engineer in HIMUDA and as such, respondent No.3 being senior to the petitioner herein figured at Sr. No. 11 and petitioner at Sr. No.12. Next post to which, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were eligible for consideration and appointment was that of “Executive Engineer”, however, this being the selection post was to be filled on the basis of merit cum seniority. Petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 16.6.2007 vide office order dated 16.6.2007, on the basis of recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer and down grading of her annual ACRs for the period of 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005 and 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006, respondent No.3 filed an Original Application bearing OA No. 1642 of 2007 in the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, but same came to be transferred to this court on account of abolishment of the erstwhile Tribunal and was re-registered as CWP(T) No 15395 of 2008. This court vide judgment dated 18.12.2012, held that non-communication of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in complete violation of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725. Vide aforesaid judgment, though this Court did not disturb the promotion of the petitioner and also refused to downgrade his assessment made in the ACRs, but directed the respondent State and HIMUDA to ensure prompt compliance of the directions contained in Dev Dutt’s case (supra). This court also observed that in case (respondent No.3) petitioner herein, becomes aggrieved about the down gradation of his report, he should also be conveyed the entries etc. for the appropriate remedial action. Aforesaid judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, was further laid challenge in LPA No. 30 of 2013, titled