Appointing authority cannot selectively reject DPC recommendations for eligible candidate while accepting for others without following Handbook procedure for disagreement; must ensure equal treatment for similarly situated promotees based on cut-off eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:-

“(i) That impugned Annexure A-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant who was recommended along with all other candidates in DPC held on 30.05.2003 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Draughtsman in the year, 1997 with the respondents- Department and had acquired the qualification of AMIE in September, 1999. The respondent-Department forwarded a memorandum for convening Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC) for filling up of vacant/anticipated posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), that arose in the year 2002 to respondent No.3-Commission to consider the eligible candidates for promotion as on 01.01.2002. The name of the petitioner was also forwarded for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), since he was found eligible as per the requirement laid down in Para 16.8 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol.-I, wherein it has been clearly provided that for calculating the number of vacancies for the current year, all vacancies anticipated during the next 12 months from 1st January to 31st December shall be taken into account. Respondent No.3-Commission convened DPC on 30.05.2003 and forwarded the recommendation to the respondent-Department and the name of the petitioner was also recommended. However, before offering appointment to the petitioner as per the recommendations made by respondent No.3-Commission, respondent No.4, who otherwise was not eligible at the time of initiation of process to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for which cut of date was fixed as 01.01.2002, approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal), to seek directions that the petitioner is junior to him and, therefore, his claim should also be considered in the above-stated DPC. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2004 disposed of the Original Application with a direction to decide the representation made by respondent No.4 within a period of four weeks after hearing respondent No.4 as well as the petitioner. However, in the meantime, the respondents were directed not to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer meant for Draughtsman Cadre out of 1% quota having AMIE qualification till the decision on the representation.

3. It has been averred in the petition that in reply to the Original Application filed by respondent No.4, the respondents-State had taken the stand that respondent No.4 was not eligible as per the required laid down norms in Para 16.8 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, wherein it is clearly provided that for calculating the number of vacancies for the current year, all vacancies anticipated during the 12 months, from 1st January to 31st December shall be taken into account. Thus, those officers who were found eligible for promotion as on 01.01.2002, were recommended by the respondent-Department vide DPC memorandum dated 11.07.2002. Since respondent No.4 was not having requisite degree of AMIE from the recognized institution on the said date, there were no occasion and reason for forwarding his name in the list of eligible candidates in AMIE category, i.e. those who have passed the said AMIE e