- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The petitioner after his initial appointment as a clerk was promoted on 3-2-1983 as Sales Supervisor Grade-I and was confirmed there on 16-7-1984. On 3-10-1986 the petitioner made representation for his fur ther promotion as he completed three years service and no other scheduled tribes candidate was available. Upon a fur ther representation by the petitioner the respondents sent reply dated 28-8-1990 stating that the promotion was strictly on merit and promotion committee upon consideration of all available cases, promoted the respondent No. 4, Sri K. K. Srivastava and therefore the contention of the petitioner that a junior had been promoted superseding the petitioner, does not enable the petitioner to obtain relief. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the promotional order dated 10-7-1990 and for command ing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sales/commercial Manager with seniority higher than the respondent No. 3.
(2.) TWO counter-affidavits and two rejoinder affidavits have been filed at dif ferent stages of the proceeding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 4 was junior to the petitioner and does not belong to reserved quota and therefore his promotion superseding the claim of the petitioner was illegal and is liable to be quashed entitling the petitioner to be promoted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that there was no adverse remarks against the petitioner communicated to him till 12-7-1991 and adverse remark communicated on that date had also been subsequently expunged after representation by the petitioner and therefore the promotion committee could not reject the claim of the petitioner and there was no material to show that he is unfit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on various provisions contained in Government policy for the purpose of contending that the petitioner is entitled such to such promotion. Learned Counsel for the respon dents contended that the promotion in the concerned post was strictly on merit and that too by the promotion committee after consideration of all available candidates. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was also considered by the promotional com mittee along with other available can didates and the respondent No. 4 was promoted strictly on merit and therefore there is no question of super session of the petitioner entitling him to any relief. The facts stated in both the counter-affidavits have been relied on in support of such contention and it is stated that such promotion on merit according to the Rules by the departmental promotion committee cannot be challenged on the ground of super session.
(3.) AFTER considering the respective contentions of the parties I find that the petitioner does not challenge that the criteria for promotion was only merit and promotion committee considered the case. Therefore when a promotion com mittee considered merit of all available candidates, including the petitioner and ultimately gave promotion to the respon dent No. 4, the petitioner cannot make a claim before the writ Court alleging super session. No material has been disclosed justifying an interference on the question of consideration by the promotion com mittee. It is also not the case of the petitioner that his case was not even con sidered and therefore it is not for this Court to enter into the consideration of the promotion committee as regards such promotion. No allegation of mala fide against the members of committee has been made justifying a consideration. Contention of the petitioner that he was not having any adverse remark is also not relevant here as it is not a case of promotion of a senior subject to rejection of unfit. In such case, such contention of the petitioner may be considered if the facts otherwise permit. In the present case admittedly the promotion has been made according to Rules strictly on merit only and that too by promotion committee. Absence of any adverse remark as alleged by the petitioner will have no relevance.;