In a review DPC conducted with reference to an earlier meeting, the suitability of an employee must be assessed based on the service record and the availability of material as they existed on the date of the initial DPC; subsequent departmental enquiries cannot be considered to deny such promotion.

NAFR

ORDER ON BOARD

1. Brief facts of the case are that meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 29.09.2018 to consider the suitability of the eligible Field Officers for their promotion to the post of Executive Officer. In the said meeting, DPC considered name of petitioner as he was falling within the zone of consideration, however, he was not recommended for promotion because Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of petitioner of the year 2016-17 was not available and his name was kept in circulation. In the meeting of review DPC held on 10.02.2021 with reference to the DPC dated 29.09.2018, petitioner was found suitable for promotion, however, he was not promoted due to pendency of departmental enquiry, which made the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ direction / order to set aside Order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-1), DPC dated 29.09.2018 convened by the DPC Committee (ANNEXURE P-2), Order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-3), Order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-4), Order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-5) and Order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-6).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ direction / order to the respondents authority to grant / provide promotion to the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 29.09.2018 with seniority and all consequential service benefits.

10.3 That, any direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.”]

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was having good service record till the date when the DPC convened meeting on 29.09.2018 for consideration of the name of eligible Field Officers for their promotion to the post of Executive Officer. Name of petitioner was though considered, however, he could not be recommended for promotion as the ACR of petitioner for the year 2016-17 was not available. Non-availability of ACR of petitioner of one year is due to administrative lapse on the part of respondents for which petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent-Department have convened review DPC on 10.02.2021 with reference to the DPC meeting dated 29.09.2018. Petitioner was found suitable but he was again not recommended for promotion mentioning that a departmental enquiry is pending consideration against him. He would submit that the candidature of petitioner and his suitability is to be considered even if in review DPC as of during first meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018, on the said date petitioner was not served with charge-memo nor any enquiry was pending against him and therefore respondents ought to have recommended for issuance of order of promotion when the candidature of petitioner is considered in review DPC meeting held on 10.02.2021 in reference of the first meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018. Direction be issued to the respondent-Department to issue order of promotion in favour of petitioner with effect from the date when other Field Officers were promoted to the post of Executive Officer pursuant to meeting of DPC convened on 29.09.2018.

3. Learned counsel for respondent-State would submit that petitioner is an empl