The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency, justification, and the application of mind in the selection process for promotions, especially when considering the exceptional merits and suitability of an officer.

( 1. ) THE appellant being aggrieved by Order dated 4. 3. 2008 passed in w. P. No. 23798/2003 (OA. No. 927/1997) and W. P. (S) No. 1119/2005 has come to this Court with a submission that the learned single Judge was absolutely unjustified in holding that the appellant could not be considered higher in merits in comparison to the original petitioner/respondent no. 1 and others.

( 2. ) UNDISPUTEDLY the respondent no. 1/original petitioner is senior to the present appellant. When their cases for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Fisheries were under consideration a departmental promotion committee was required to consider their cases. The committee consisted of Mr. M. M. Hussain, Member, public Service Commission, Shri Prem Prakash Mathur, Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Shri V. L. Shitole, Director, Fisheries Department and Shri A. K. Jain, Under Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Fisheries. It is to be seen that the said committee met on 6. 7. 1996. It is also to be seen that an earlier committee consisting of Shri MM. Hussain, Member, Madhya Pradesh public Service Commissioner, Shri Sirjjiyas Minj, Secretary, Fisheries Department, shri V. L. Shitole, Director, Fisheries Department and Shri A. K. Jain, Under secretary of the Fisheries Department had recorded their proceedings. The said committee had observed that the original petitioner Shri D. K. Bapna would be placed as very good while Shri Jitendra Singh and Shri K. D. Singh would be considered as good. The committee also observed that case of Shri Harpal Singh sidhu could not be considered as his confidential reports were not made available. After sometime the departmental promotion committee was re-constituted and it met on 6. 7. 1996. In paragraph 3 the committee recorded in relation to the seniority and gradation list. However, in sub para 4 of paragraph 3 the committee referring to Rule 15 (3) of Madhya Pradesh Matsyaudhyog (Rajpatrit) Seva Bharti Niyam, 1987 observed that a person of exceptional merit and suitability could be given higher place in this list in comparison to the officers who were senior to him. The committee also observed that it had considered the confidential reports for the year 1989-90 to 1993-94 for a period of five years. They also observed in paragraph 6 that the committee was of the opinion that for purposes of promotion the requirements would be: (a ). Integrity should be above board. (b ). In the last five years the three years grades at least should be good or higher and for last two years the grade should be good. (c ). The grades of last five years should not be bad. (d ). The committee observed that where the comments etc. were not clear the Committee had assessed the concerned officer with their own wisdom and discretion and; (e ). Where some departmental enquiry was pending consideration then report of such officer was kept in a sealed cover.

( 3. ) WHILE considering clause (5) they observed that all the persons who were directed to be promoted vide meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 22. 2. 1993 have been promoted. While preparing the select list the committee observed and graded the persons as follows :

1. Shri Harpal Singh Sidhu. 2. Shri Jitendra Singh. 3. Shri D. K. Bapna. 4. Shri K. D. Singh.

( 4. ) THE committee also observed that in its opinion and in view of Rule 15 (3)Shri Harpal Singh Sidhu being a man of exceptional merits and suitability could be given the higher position in comparison to his seniors.

( 5. ) AFTER the recommendations were placed before the Government, the government promoted Shri Harpal Singh Sidhu (as Officiating) Joint Director. It appears that after the orders were passed in favour of Shri Harpal Singh Sidhu, the respondent no. 1 filed Original Application No. 927/1997 before the State administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the said petition the present appellant who was officiating as Joint Director was further promoted as officiating director. It appe