(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has produced a letter, received by her from the Respondent No. 2, which suggests that a copy of the writ petition has been served upon the Respondent No. 4. In such view of the matter, we proceed on the basis that the Respondent No. 4 stands served. The letter, referred to above, is kept with the record.
(2.) IN the writ petition, filed in 2006, Petitioner challenged grant of promotion to the Respondent No. 4 and non -grant of promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry). At that time, the Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 framed recruitment rules, and therein provided that merit -cum -seniority shall be the criterion for promotion. The case of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 25.4.2006, whereupon the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended promotion in favour of Respondent No. 4, holding out that the Respondent No. 4, having done more and better research work, is more meritorious than the Petitioner. The said recommendation was accepted by the Respondent No. 2, whereupon the Respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry).
(3.) AS it appears to us, the criterion for selection stands altered and according to the altered criterion, an employee of the Respondent No. 2 is entitled to be promoted on the basis of his seniority, provided he is otherwise fit. The records of the case show that the Departmental Promotion Committee had fixed the benchmark of 'good' as the criterion for determining whether an officer is fit or unfit. It is the contention of the Petitioner, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit, that the Petitioner achieved the benchmark of 'good'. Furthermore, the Central Government, as appears from Annexure 4 to the writ petition, has prescribed benchmark of 'good' also for the post in question, since the same entails payment of salary in the pay scale of below Rs. 12,000 -16,500/ -.