TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefit. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of Annexure 2 which is a letter dated 8/11.12.1995 issued by the C.M.D., CMPDIL (respondent No. 4) whereby and whereunder a formal communication has been made informing the petitioner that his representation has been rejected. Though not having said so in so many words which the C.M.D. should have done, he merely quotes and unquotes the minutes of a decision taken on the representation of the petitioner. However, according to Mr. P.K. Prasad, the representation, was, in fact rejected as per the above mentioned communication.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his placement in the seniority list was at Sl. No. 65. A DPC was held in December, 1993 wherein one of the criterion for purposes of consideration of a case for promotion was the overall assessment during the last live preceding years i.e. 1988 -89, 1989 -90, 1990 -91, 1991 -92 and 1992 -93. Mr. P.K. Prasad has further submitted that the petitioners overall performance during the last five relevant years was excellent but just three months before the holding of the D.P.C., the Reviewing Authority down graded the rating to "good". According to him, such a down gradation/adverse entry was not even communicate to the petitioner. At paragraph 6, 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows : "6. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 4 of the said writ application I say that the statement made therein is admitted, except the contention of petitioner towards the doing well in interview, conducted in December 93 by selection -cum -DPC, it is a matter of record. 7. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the said writ application I say that the performance appraisal report votings or reducing by reviewing authority is a matter of record. However, the contention of the petitioner for ignoring CR ratings by selection -cum -DPC is hereby denied. 9. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the said writ application I say that the promotion orders were released in accordance to the recommendation extended by the selection -cum -DPC and the panel was formulated in order of merit as per the methodology/criteria laid down in the relevant provision for promotion from M -2 to M -3 grade.";