K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's plea is that he should have been considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector from its feeder cadre Public Distribution Clerk in the respondent Corporation. The grievance is that he was due for promotion even in the year 1981 for he fulfilled the necessary qualification but he was not so considered. Again in the year 1991, several posts fell vacant when juniors to him had been promoted even at the time he had been left out of reckoning. The prayer in the writ petition is to consider the petitioner for promotion taking note of the representations which he had made.
(2.) THE reply filed by the respondent is to the effect that at the initial time in the year 1981, there had been a departmental proceeding against him for major punishment and it was concluded against the petitioner and a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was issued on 09.05.1988. He preferred an appeal and the appellate authority had reduced that punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar taking into consideration the length of service in the cadre dated 23.01.1989 and when consideration to the post of promotion was taken in the year 1991, the petitioner's case was considered and it was found that for the preceding four years out of five years, the ACRs had given to him only a grading as "average". Only in the year 1989, he had a good report. Consequently, the petitioner's case did not fall within the zone of consideration and as such he was not considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. The reply bears out that he was later designated as Senior PDC vide order dated 07.05.1992 at a higher scale and was promoted as Sub Inspector Grade II on 07.08.1996. The reply also brings the pendency of three departmental cases against him. While the subsequent proceedings would be of no consequence, there is a ground why his case was not considered in the year 1991 favourably. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the order of promotion, there is no reference to the petitioner's case as having been considered. The administrative authority that issues orders of promotion do not engage in quasi -judicial activity of having to set out reasons for why the said person was not promoted. If a person did not fall within the zone of consideration, there is no compulsion of setting out in the order why his name was not considered. The petitioner himself ought to have known the fact relating to his ACR entry and if in any event, they are brought through a reply now, there is no further rejoinder to the same to deny want of knowledge of the adverse ACRs that disqualified him from the zone of consideration.
(3.) HE has ultimately come by favourable order of promotion in the year 1996 and his grievance that he should have been considered for promotion even in the year 1991 cannot be accepted in the light of facts brought through reply.;