Judicial Interference In Departmental Promotion Committee Decisions Restricted; MP HC Clarifies Standards
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior: Justice Anil Verma dismissed the writ petition filed by M.H. Qureshi, a Junior Engineer (Electrical Safety), challenging his denial of promotion to the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical Safety). The Court upheld the Departmental Promotion Committee's (DPC) decision, citing the petitioner's failure to meet the required benchmarks, and emphasized that judicial interference in DPC decisions is warranted only under specific conditions.
Background
The petitioner, M.H. Qureshi, had served as a Junior Engineer since 1980. In 2005, the DPC reviewed his case for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Electrical Safety) and Assistant Electrical Inspector but found him ineligible due to poor Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The petitioner argued that his ACRs for 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, barring 2001-2002, had not been communicated to him, violating his right to challenge adverse entries. He requested the court to order a review DPC to consider his case for promotion based on the “seniority-cum-merit” criteria, while ignoring the adverse remarks from 2001-2002, which were pending resolution.
Arguments
The petitioner contended that his promotion was denied unjustly based on uncommunicated ACRs, violating his right to challenge adverse entries. He cited several Supreme Court cases, including State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher (1996) and U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain (1996), asserting that uncommunicated adverse entries should not be considered for promotion decisions.
The respondents, representing the State, argued that the DPC's decision was based on valid ACRs from the past five years (1999-2000 to 2003-2004), and that the petitioner had failed to meet the required minimum marks for promotion. The DPC's criteria mandated that none of the ACRs should fall under the “GHA” (below average) category. The petitioner, however, had received “GHA” for the 2001-2002 period and “GA” (average) for four other years, disqualifying him from promotion.
Court's Reasoning
The Court began by emphasizing that judicial review of DPC decisions is limited to cases where there is clear illegality, violation of statutory rules, or evidence of malice. In this case, the DPC had adhered to the “seniority-cum-merit” criteria and considered the last five years of ACRs, finding the petitioner ineligible based on his low marks and a below-average grading in one year. Further, the Court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on uncommunicated ACRs, noting that while the 2001-2002 ACR had been challenged, the petitioner failed to contest other adverse entries. The Court held that the petitioner had neither filed an appeal nor presented evidence to challenge the ACRs in a timely manner. Consequently, the petitioner's adverse entries remained valid for the DPC's evaluation.
Citing several precedents, including Union of India v. S.K. Goel (2007) and Diploma Engineers Sangathan v. State of U.P. (2007), the Court reiterated that the DPC enjoys discretion in assessing the merit and fitness of candidates for promotion, and courts should not interfere unless the DPC's decisions are tainted by bias or legal violation. The Court clarified that promotions based on seniority-cum-merit require both qualifications, and seniority alone cannot guarantee advancement if the candidate fails to meet merit-based standards. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the DPC acted within its rights and the petitioner did not meet the required benchmarks. As no procedural irregularities were found, the Court declined to interfere in the DPC's decision.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri K.K. Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate
Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-GWL:17961