Promotion benchmark of 80 marks requires cumulative computation from character roll entries plus additional factors like capability, merit, technological knowledge per paragraph 7(7) before suitability determination; sole reliance on character rolls invalidates rejection.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. V.K. Bajpai, learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.02.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for consideration for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier as well petitioner had filed Writ-A No. 1293 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2025 directing the authorities concerned to take a final decision with regard to grievance of petitioner. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that with regard to such consideration for promotion, it is the Government Order dated 27.09.2019 read with Government Order dated 04.10.2019 which is implemented. It is submitted that Government Order dated 27.09.2019 indicates the procedure and methodology of consideration for promotion with marks being allocated on the basis of entries made in the annual character roll. It is submitted that the Government Order indicates a benchmark of 80 marks out of 100 which are required to be obtained by a candidate for being considered for promotion. It is submitted that a perusal of said Government Order indicates the marks required to be allocated with regard to the annual character roll entries and places reliance on paragraph - 7 of the aforesaid Government Order to submit that apart from the marks allocated for entries in the Annual Character Roll, additional marks and consideration is required by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the aspects indicated in the said paragraph pertaining to capability, merit, technological knowledge, special entries, etc.

5. It is submitted that however, in the present case, petitioner's candidature for promotion has been rejected only on the ground that he failed to attain the minimum benchmark of 80 without considering the aspects indicated in paragraph - 7 of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019.

6. He has also adverted to paragraph - 9 and Schedule - I of the Government Order dated 04.10.2019 to submit that the schedule indicates the format which is required to be forwarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as indicated in Format - 4 whereunder comments are also required to be made in terms of paragraph - 7 of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 but no such consideration has been made with regard to petitioner.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that both Government Orders dated 27.09.2019 and 04.10.2019 indicate merit based selection for which a benchmark of 80 marks has been prescribed and it is only those candidates or employees who secure 80 or more marks who are classified under the suitable category and included in the selection list subject to availability of actual vacancies and in order of seniority within feeding cadre.

8. It is submitted that for selection ye