- (1.) The petitioner, a Senior Accounts Officer in the Haryana State Electricity Board challenges the order dated June 15, 1992 by which respondent No. 2 was promoted as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer. The petitioner has raised two grounds. Firstly, it is urged that the petitioner's claim has not been considered in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government vide letter dated May 9, 1985 which had been adopted by the Board in the meeting held on November 20, 1985. Secondly, it has been urged that 'average reports' having not been communicated to petitioner could not have been taken into consideration by the respondents.
(2.) The Writ Petition has been contested by respondent No.1 only. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board it has been interalia averred that the record of the two officers was considered. It was found that in case of the petitioner, eight reports have been recorded from the year 1981-82 to the year 1990-91. Out of diese, in 5-1/2 reports the petitioner had been assessed as good/very good. The remaining reports were 'Average'. As such, the percentage of good reports was 68.75%. Similarly the record of respondent No. 2 was considered for a period of ten years from the year 1981-82. In his case, a total of 7-1/2 reports had been recorded during this period. Out of these, there were 6-1/2 reports in which he had been assessed as good/very good. In the remaining reports he was assessed as 'Average'. As such, his percentage of good reports was 86.6%. On diese premises, the respondent Board maintains that its action in selecting and appoint respondent No. 2 is valid.
(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post had to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. In accordance with the instructions issued by the Government which had been adopted by the Board, a person who has earned 75% good reports during the last ten years, is entitled to be promoted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the missing reports had to be treated as good. On this basis, the counsel submits that the petitioner had earned more than 70% good reports. He further submits that the three average reports borne on the petitioner's record having not been conveyed to him had also to be treated as good.;