In a 'merit-cum-seniority' promotion system, seniority alone does not guarantee promotion; the administration has the discretion to promote junior candidates if they are found more meritorious based on character rolls and special reports.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc: Yes/No

ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioner who is presently holding the post of Sub-Inspector Taxation Department, KHADC is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.01.2025, whereby the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, have been given promotion to the post of Inspector in the said Department.

2. Before adverting to the arguments, it is first to be noted that the service of the writ petitioner is captioned under Service-III of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961 , in the Taxation Service/Department, and the same consists of Entry Level of Assistant Sub-Inspector, next higher post Sub-Inspector, and the present post is concerned with the promotion to the next higher post of Inspector Taxation.

3. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, who have been accorded promotion are junior to the petitioner having joined service much later i.e. in the year 2019 and 2020 respectively, whereas the petitioner had entered service since 02.09.2104. The learned counsel further submits that though the Rules provides consideration for promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, in the instant case however, there has been no objective criteria applied by the respondents, which has deprived the petitioner of his due promotion, though he is the seniormost in the said cadre. It is also submitted that the denial it appears has been on the basis of a show cause notice dated 30.08.2019, that has been issued to the writ petitioner with regard to negligence in not attending office regularly and lack of responsibility. The learned counsel submits that to the show cause notice, a reply was duly filed and that the matter never proceeded thereafter. It is contended that as there was no Departmental proceeding drawn up against the writ petitioner, the denial of promotion being solely based on the issuance of the show cause notice, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and as such the entire selection process is liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments, which have been submitted in the form of a compilation : -

i) Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836

ii) Union of India vs. Tejinder Singh (1991) 4 SCC 129

iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704

iv) Coal India Ltd., & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625

v) Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725

vi) Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 345

vii) Harangthan Mawii vs. Lai Autonomous District Council & Ors. 2005 (2) GLT 588

4. Mr. W. Khyllep, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, has placed reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that consideration for promotion is governed by Rule-15 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961 , and as per the said Rule, promotion to any service shall be made ordinarily on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, after careful examination of the character rolls, and special reports called for on the suitability of the eligible officers for promotion and other records. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Taxation from amongst the eligible Sub-Inspectors of Taxation, the said report had been called for, and on the recommendations made thereof, which reflected that the writ petitioner was not the most suitable candidate for pr