K P PATEL Vs. STATE OF CG
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
K P Patel
STATE OF CG
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE present petition challenges the order dated 1-4-2005 passed by the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the
petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) was promoted to the
post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis by order dated 9-9-2003 has
not been confirmed on regular basis and the petitioner has been reverted back to
his original post i.e. Assistant Engineer.
(2.) BY amendment of the petition, the petitioner further seeks a direction against the respondents to consider the petitioner for regular promotion on the
post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1-4-2005 with all consequential benefits. The
amendment in the prayer was allowed on 27-6-2005.
The Undisputed facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh
when by order dated 9-9-2003 he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer
along with others on ad hoc basis. Subsequently by order dated 1-4-2005 the
petitioner was not confirmed on regular basis on the post of Executive Engineer as
such the petitioner was reverted back to the original post of Assistant Engineer.
The petitioner filed this petition challenging the order dated 1-4-2005 Annexure
P/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been
denied regular promotion on the post of Executive Engineer in violation of the Rule
6(5) and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Public services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter 'Rules, 2003').
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was fit for promotion as no departmental enquiry and/or criminal case was pending against
the petitioner. There was no adverse entry/remark in the confidential report of the
petitioner from the date of the ad hoc promotion till consideration by the
Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter 'D.P.C.') for regular promotion
to the post of Executive Engineer as nothing adverse was communicated to the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has made a
comparative assessment of the merits of the candidates to determine who is 'very
good', good' or 'does not have required criteria', as stated by the respondents in
its reply in para 2 to the effect that "It is most respectfully submitted that the
confidential report of 5 years has been considered and as the petitioner's
Coriidential Report was not fulfilling the criteria, therefore, petitioner found unfit
for regular promotion", and in para-5 of the reply to the effect that "It is pertinent
to mention here that on the basis of Confidential Report, each and every employee
earn points and as alleged juniors to the petitioner were having better Confidential
Reports then the petitioner, therefore, they have earned more points and on the
basis of same Departmental Promotion Committee found them suitable for regular
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and further found that the petitioner
herein is not at all fit for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer." The
criteria of the promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive
Engineer as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2003 is 'seniority subject to fitness'. It was
further contended that Rule 6(7) of the Rules, 2003 clearly provides that the D.P.C.
shall consider the case of each public servant separately on the basis of their own
merit, and that there shall be no need to make a comparative assessment of the
merits of public servant separately and shall categorize them as 'fit' or 'not fit'.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.