The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the promotion granted to the 3rd respondent vide Ext.P3 as Accountant (Selection Grade) and for other consequential reliefs. According to the petitioner, he commenced service on 25/4/1972 in the establishment under the administrative control of the second respondent and subsequently promoted as Assistant Accountant, Assistant Accountant (Spl.Grade) and then as Accountant. Ext.P1 is the order by which the petitioner was promoted as Accountant after screening by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Ext.P2(a) is the relevant extract of the amended seniority list of the employees published along with Ext.P2 circular. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, who is junior to him in all these categories and who commenced service in the Cochin Area office only on 16/12/1992 as Accountant by transfer from another area office has been given promotion as Accountant (Selection Grade) by Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, the said promotion of the 3rd respondent is per se illegal. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. Along with the said counter affidavit the relevant recruitment rules have been produced as Ext.R1. Going by Ext.R1 Recruitment Rules, the post of Accountant (Selection Grade) is categorized as a Group-I Post. As per the said Rules, all appointments to Group-I shall be made by the Board and will be filled in by departmental promotions which will be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Being the senior most candidate, the name of the petitioner was also placed before the Department Promotion Committee for consideration and on assessment the Committee evaluated from his Annual Confidential Reports that his performance aggregated to “Average”, which was inadequate for promotion on merit-cum- seniority. Hence the candidate considered suitable was promoted on merit-cum-seniority as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The first respondent further contended that the promotion granted to the 3rd respondent was well within the rules and regulations and hence contention regarding overlooking the lawful claim of the petitioner is unsustainable.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that, though the 3rd respondent is junior to him, the said respondent was granted promotion as Accountant (Selection Grade) overlooking the superior claim of the petitioner. Now going by Ext.R1, the Recruitment Rules, promotion to the post of Accountant (Selection Grade), which is a Group-I post classified under the Recruitment Rules, will have to be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it has been categorically stated that being the senior most candidate the name of the petitioner was also placed along with other eligible candidates before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Accountant (Selection Grade). But the said Committee on an evaluation of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner came to the conclusion that his performance aggregated to only average, which was inadequate for promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis. The candidate considered suitable was promoted as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and therefore the promotion granted to the 3rd respondent was well within the Rules and Regulations.
As born out from the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the claim made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Accountant (Selection Grade) along with other eligible candidates and on a proper evaluation decided to grant promotion to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the first respondent in granting promotion to the 3rd respondent. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and the petitioner is not entitled for any other reliefs prayed for in this Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A to Judge