The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be considered for promotion was conferred on the petitioner, who was duly considered but not found fit for promotion at the relevant time, based on the assessment of merits reflected in the Annual Confidential Reports.

K.K. Trivedi, J.:-

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.12.2004 by which the persons said to be junior to the petitioner, have been promoted on the post of Additional Chief Engineer (T&D), contending inter alia that the petitioner was denied the benefit of promotion only because the vacancies, which occurred on the aforesaid post before coming into force of the amendment made in the Regulations prescribing consideration for promotion, were filled in by considering the cases in terms of amended Regulations. It is contended that the facts relating to availability of the vacancies was specifically pleaded, brought to the notice of the authorities but the same was not taken into consideration. The petitioner though was subsequently promoted but was denied the promotion at the relevant time only because a change of criteria as prescribed in the amended provisions of the regulations was made applicable in case of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 24. All those juniors have been promoted earlier than the petitioner and because of that reason, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of consideration for promotion in the next higher cadre. It is contended that such an act of the respondents is per se illegal in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in various cases and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. By way of amendment in the writ petition it is contended that the vacancies, according to the own showing of respondents No.1 and 2, were available prior to coming into force of amendment in the regulations and, therefore, the same were to be filled in by unamended provision and not under the amended provisions. Had rightful thing been done, the petitioner would have been promoted prior to the promotion of aforesaid respondents No.3 to 24 and would have further been granted an opportunity for being considered for promotion to next higher cadre, which has been denied to the petitioner. On the basis of these pleadings, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :

“(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari may please be issued for quashing of the impugned notification dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondents No.1 and 2;

(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may please be issued commanding the respondents No.1 and 2 to arrange a review DPC for consideration of the petitioner's candidature for his promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer with retrospective effect from 31.03.2003 based on eligibility criteria prior to issuance of impugned notification dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure P-2) and to further promote him on the higher posts of Chief Engineer and Executive Director on the earlier criteria;

(iii) The respondents No.1 & 2 may please be further directed to extend all the ancillary benefits in the arrears of salary; seniority, etc. with a further direction to pay arrears of salary with a reasonable interest within a stipulated period of four months with a further direction that in the event the arrears are not paid within the stipulated period the interest pay be recovered from the erring officers.

(iv) Any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioner entitled to be also granted.

(v) Costs of the petition.”

2. Though notices of this writ petition were issued to the respondents, only the respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the matter. Since the respondents No.3 to 24 were the persons who were going to be affected in case the relief claimed is granted, it was necessary for them to oppose the claim of the petitioner but nothing has been done in that respect. However, the fact remains that many of the respondents and petitioner himself has retired from service and, therefore, it would not be necessary to ensure service of the notice of this writ petition on the other respondents.

3. While filing the return, respondents No.1 and 2 have categorically contended that the claim of the petitioner was rightly considered