The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the merit and suitability of candidates for promotion, with specific reference to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding years, as outlined in the relevant clauses of the Office Memorandum and the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2001.

JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2527 OF 2007

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3413 of 2006]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2528-2529 OF 2007

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12650-12651 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2002 providing for the mode and manner for considering the suitability of candidates for promotion from one post to the other, falls for consideration in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 27.01.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 5 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1

from a judgment and order 29.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 44 of 2004, was allowed.

3. A post of Executive Engineer was created on 01.02.2004. For the purpose of filling up the said post, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, the DPC) held a meeting on 16.03.2004. The DPC indisputably was, inter alia, to consider the Annual Confidential Reports (for short, ACRs) of the candidates concerned. Both the appellant and the first respondent along with two others were eligible therefor. Promotion to the said post is governed by the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2001 (for short, the Rules). Rule 20 of the said Rules, inter alia, provides for general procedure for promotion, relevant clauses whereof are as under :

"20. (1) Whether any vacancy or vacancies arise(s) to be filled up by promotion, the Controlling Authority shall furnish to the Commission, the following documents and

information :

(d)Annual Confidential Reports of eligible candidates of preceding years as may be required, length of service, duly reviewed and accepted by the authorities concerned.

(e)Details about reservation for member of the service in respect of graduate in Engineering and holders of under graduate diploma in Engineering as provided

under sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 19.

(f)Clearance from Vigilance Department separately in respect of each, and

(g)Any other documents and information as may be considered necessary by the Commission."

4.State of Mizoram, however, issued an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2002 laying down the procedures to be observed by the DPC, relevant clauses whereof are as under :

"3.2While merit has to be recognised and rewarded, advancement in the officers career should not be regarded as a matter of course but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports and based on strict and rigorous selection process.

3.4Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. Hence,

(a)The DPC should consider CRs for equal number of years in respect of all Officers considered for promotion subject to (c) below.

(b)The DPC should assess the suitability of the candidates for promotion on the basis of the their service records and with particular reference to the CR for five preceding years, irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules. (If more than one CR has been written in a particular year all the CRs for the relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year).

(c)When ACR has not been written by the reporting Officer despite submission of the self-appraisal to the Reporting Officer by the Officers reported upon during the relevant period, the DPC should consider the CR of one preceding year beyond the relevant period.

(e)The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs, but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs, because it has been noticed that, some time, the overall grading in a CR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes.

(f) If the Reviewing Authority or the Ac