G.R.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner who is a Superintending Engineer (Civil) under the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC, for short) inter alia prays for quashing the impugned order dated the 29th September, 1995 issued by the Director (HRD) of the Damodar Valley Corporation whereby the petitioner was denied promotion and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) although they were junior to the petitioner,-their position in the gradation list being 26 and 27 respectively as against the position of the petitioner at serial No. 25. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been unduly deprived of promotion and has been arbitrarily superseded by those who are junior to him in the gradation list as stated above. The respondents, the DVC authorities however deny that there was any undue discrimination or arbitrariness in the matter.
(2.) Section 60 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 empowers the Corporation, with previous sanction of the Central Government, to make regulations for making appointment and promotion of its officers. The corporation accordingly made regulations governing the recruitment, conditions of service, pay, allowance etc. of its employees. Regulation 14 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations provides that promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority, and shall in the case of promotion to class-I, be made ordinarily after considering the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) to be set up for the purpose. It is also provided in the said regulation 14 that the function and procedure of DPC shall be similar to such committees functioning under the Central Government with suitable modifications. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the instructions/office circular issued under regulation 14 promotions to or within Class-I posts above the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent thereto were being given after considering the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee composed of the General Manager, the Head of the Department concerned and the Director of Personnel and the procedures to be observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the case of promotion to selection posts above the rank of the Executive Engineer were that the DPC would first decide the number of employees eligible for promotion who should be considered for inclusion in the panel and the field of choice must be restricted to feeder posts alone and wherever possible should extend to five times of the number of vacancies expected to occur within the next 12 months. The DPC might also prescribe the minimum seniority for eligibility. The employees in the field of selection were required to be classified by the DPC as 'fit' or 'not fit' on the basis of their merit as determined by their respective records of service and the consideration was required to be the suitability of the candidate for the higher post. It was further required that whenever the recommendation involved supersession of an officer the reason for the supersession should be recorded. Personal interview by the DPC was not normally necessary. The ACR form (Annual Confidential Report form) allots points for different kinds of ratings and specifies under clause 4.4 the criteria for eligibility of a candidate for promotion which are inter alia as follows; (1) at least 'good' report against factors 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15, (ii) at least 'satisfactory' report against the remaining clauses and (iii) at least 64 points on over all assessment and (iv) there should be no 'poor'/'below average' rating against any item.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that sometime in 1993 the appraisal system for promotion which was being so long followed was suddenly changed by DVC authorities and an Interview Board was introduced and in January 1995 the petitioner was informed that interview for selection by a Board of officers for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) would be held on 2nd February, 1995 and as the name of the petitioner was in the zone of consideration for promotion he should appear in the interview for selection. In the said Board there were four members, namely, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of West Bengal,professor of the Civil Engineering Department, I.I.T, Kharagpur, both of whom were external members and the Secretary, DVC and the Director (Projects) DVC, both of whom were departmental officers. The said Board consisting of external exports and departmental officers interviewed the officers falling within the zone of consideration and awarded marks in respect of each candidate against different items, such as, personality and appearance, ability to communicate, aptitude/behaviour, confidence level to handle situational problems, academic/professional qualification, work experience/knowledge, knowledge with regard to the latest development in the relative field, application of experience/knowledge and suitability for higher appointment. It is the contention of the petitioner that by introducing this new appraisal and interview system the DVC authorities have deviated not only from the procedure which was being so long followed but also acted centrary to regulation 14. It is however the contention of the DVC authorities that by introducing this new appraisal and interview system, far from acting contrary to regulation 14, they have only introduced better system within the framework of the regulation 14 to assess the suitability of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration for promotion. it is also the contention of the respondents that in September 1993 the Corporation took a decision that selection for the post of Superintending Engineer and above, as also for equivalent posts in other cadres, other than the non-engineering cadres of the Corporation, shall be made on the basis of merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority, through an interview to be held by a high level selection committee to be formed from time to time with senior Corporation officers and also eminent outside professionals. In my opinion the introduction of the new system cannot be said to be violative of regulation 14. Regulation 14 as we have seen, also says that promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority. These are the criteria for promotion under regulation 14. If for making an assessment of a candidate with reference to the above factors the existing method is changed and is substituted by another method aimed at attaining the same purpose, obviously the same cannot be said to be any violation of regulation 14. It appears from the relevant records produced and the xerox copies which are placed on record in this case, that the Interview Board awarded marks against each candidate in respect of the different items regarding suitability for promotion. The petitioner and the other candidates including the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, numbering seven in all were interviewed by the said Board of experts on 2.2.95 and the Board's rating in respect of each candidate and the ACR of each candidate for the last three years were considered by the DPC on 24.2.95. The ACR for three years in respect of each candidate was considered by the DPC against an allotment of 60 marks for the same and the remaining 40 marks were earmarked for the proportionate reflection of the assessment made by the Interview Board in respect of each candidate. It is the case of the respondents that the DPC fixed a cut of point of 70% duly approved by the Corporation as the Bench mark for selecting officers for promotion. It appears that on the basis of average assessment of ACR for three years the petitioner obtained 40 marks against the total 60 marks and his score in the interview before the Interview Board came to the ratio of 28 marks against the total of 40 marks and combining these two scores of the petitioner, namely, 40 for ACR assessment and 23 for interview the petitioner obtained a total of 68 marks as against 100 and he thus failed to secure, in the aggregate, 70% of the marks which was the Bench mark, namely, the minimum required mark for qualifying for promotion and accordingly the DPC did not recommend him for promotion while they recommended the other six candidates including the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) as they scored more than the Bench Mark and were found fit for promotion. In this connection it must be said even at the cost of repetition that the DVC authorities did not commit any wrong or irregularity by introducing the system of assessment through an Interview Board apart from the consideration of ACR. As we have seen such Interview Board was composed of four members of whom two were experts from outside, namely, from IIT, Kharagpur and the Government of West Bengal. The various items for relating in respect of each candidate as dealt with by the Interview Board also show that the system must be a very thorough one focussing attention on the various aspects of the performance and attainment of each individual candidate and I find no reason why one should find fault with this system or say that it is inconsistent with regulation 14.;