Merit-cum-Seniority Distinct From Seniority-cum-Merit, Can't Promote Less Meritorious Sr Candidate Over More Meritorious Jr Candidate In Former: HP High Court

A bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyostna Rewal Dua referenced Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and another Vs. High Court of Gujarat 2023 to reiterate that promoting a less meritorious senior candidate over a more meritorious junior candidate was unacceptable in cases following the 'merit-cum-seniority' principle.

"Where the promotion is based on ‘merit-cum-seniority’, the seniority is not the determinative factor. The emphasis is on the ‘merit’ of the officer. The comparative assessment of merit of officers being considered for promotion on the basis of their seniority, assumes utmost significance. A junior officer with higher merit than his senior, can steal march over the latter, depending upon fulfillment of other prescribed parameters."

It added, 

“Tendency of mixing two different principles having two different connotations i.e. ‘seniority-cum-merit’ and ‘merit-cum-seniority’ in a case where recommendations are to be made only on the basis of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ has been disapproved and deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.

Roop Lal, an Agriculture Inspector, had filed a petition challenging the promotion of Satinder Singh Thakur to the post of Block Development Officer (BDO) in 2007. Both Lal and Thakur joined as Agriculture Inspectors in January 1988 and were confirmed in 1994.The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)) recommended Thakur's name for promotion as BDO against the quota of Agriculture Development Officer/Extension Officer (ADO/EO) (AGR).

Lal challenged this promotion primarily because the post in question was a selection post, so the criteria required to be adopted was 'merit-cum-seniority.' He argued that he had a better claim and higher merit for the promotion based on his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

The single bench agreed with Roop Lal's contentions and set aside Thakur's promotion and directed the authorities to initiate a fresh process for making promotions to the post of BDO.

Aggrieved by this judgment, the State, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and Thakur approached the division bench. 

The appellants, contesting the single bench judgment asserted that their assessments were aligned with the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel Himachal Pradesh in 1981. He contended that these guidelines warranted the 'very good' rating for the officers in question.

The key issue was whether promotion to the BDO post considered a 'selection' post, should be based on 'merit-cum-seniority' or 'seniority-cum-merit.'

After considering the rival contentions the bench elucidated the fundamental differences between the 'merit-cum-seniority' and 'seniority-cum-merit' principles and emphasized that the former, which focuses on merit over seniority, must be applied diligently to ensure deserving candidates are promoted.

The court determined that the BDO promotion was indeed based on 'merit-cum-seniority.' Therefore, seniority only played a role in determining eligibility, and merit was the key factor for promotion.

The court found that the DPC failed to independently assess the ACRs and did not consider the entire service record. This was a crucial oversight since the final gradings in ACRs were not identical for all three candidates.

“In terms of the applicable R&P Rules, the post of BDO being filled up on the basis of recommendation of DPC was a ‘selection’ post. It is an admitted case of the parties that this being a ‘selection’ post, was to be filled up on the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’....The officer with higher assessment, even if junior was to supersede the senior officer with lower assessment depending upon fulfillment of other parameters ; The DPC had not resorted to any independent assessment of the ACRs of the concerned officers.”, the court pointed.

However, it underscored that promotion decisions should not merely hinge on overall ACR ratings and that the DPC must delve deeper, considering individual achievements, challenges overcome, and significant contributions made by officers in their respective roles while making a decision on promotions.

“The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading recorded in the ACR, but should make its own objective assessment on the basis of entries in the ACR & service record of the officers. In the present case, the DPC merely considered final grades in the ACRs of the officers and graded them at par with each other though even their final grades were different”, the court said.

Observing that the DPC did not independently assess the merit of the officers for promotion to the post of BDO and instead, it had relied solely on the final gradings of the ACRs for 2001-2006 the court found this assessment was not in line with the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority,' as the DPC did not make a fair evaluation of the officers' merit beyond ACRs.

Based on these observations the court upheld the Single Judge's decision to annul the promotion and the official respondents were directed to convene a new DPC, reconsidering the promotions of respondent No. 4, the petitioner, and Khem Chand Sharma.

Case Title: H.P. Public Service Commission VS Roop Lal and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 70

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment