IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.231 of 2001 Date of decision : October 20, 2008 R.C. Katna …Petitioner. Versus HPSEB and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Writ petitioner has sought judicial review of order, dated 14th March, 2008, of the State Administrative Tribunal, through the present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts relevant for the decision of the present petition are like this. On 18th January, 1996, Departmental Promotion Committee of State Electricity Board held a meeting for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer from amongst Executive Engineers. Writ petitioner R.C. Katna and respondent No.2 Ashok Mahajan were in the zone of consideration, both being Executive Engineers. Petitioner R.C. Katna, according to the seniority list, was senior to respondent No.2 Ashok Mahajan by just one step. Name of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the petitioner appeared at Sr. No.7 while that of respondent No.2 Ashok Mahajan at Sr. No.8 in the seniority list. According to the principle for assessing merit, in the matter of promotion by selection, five years confidential reports are examined and an Officer assessed ‘outstanding’ supersedes those assessed ‘very good’. Similarly, an Officer assessed ‘very good’ supersedes those assessed as ‘good’ and an Officer assessed ‘good’ supersedes those assessed ‘average’. However, supersession does not take place if the difference of length of service between the junior officer assessed higher in merit and the senior officer assessed lower in merit is three years or more. In the present case, the difference of length of service was admittedly less than three years. Departmental Promotion Committee assessed respondent No.2 Ashok Mahajan as ‘very good’ and the petitioner as ‘good’, based on ACRs of the previous five years. Recommendation was made by the Committee accordingly. State Electricity Board, i.e., respondent No.1 herein, accepted the recommendation and promoted respondent No.2 Ashok Mahajan as Superintending Engineer. Petitioner was superseded. 3. Petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal sent for the record and after perusing it noticed that the petitioner had rightly been assessed as ‘good’ and respondent No.2 had also rightly been assessed as ‘very good’ …3… and, therefore, the supersession was justified. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed. 4. Writ petitioner has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. His main grievance is that for the year 1994-95, his CR for the period 1st April, 1994 to 5th October, 1994, had been reviewed by an Officer under whom he worked only for a period of two months and that that Officer brought down his overall grading from ‘very good’ to just ‘good’. 5. We have gone through the record. We do not find from the record that the overall grading had been brought down from ‘very good’ to ‘good’. In fact, the Reporting Officer did not record any overall grading. It was the Reviewing Officer, who recorded, for the first time, that the petitioner was a good Officer and the report was accepted by the final authority as such. 6. We have been shown all the ACRs as also the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. On the basis of the ACRs of the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Departmental Promotion Committee assessed petitioner’s overall grading as ‘good’ and that of respondent No.2 as ‘very good’. From the record, we find that assessment has rightly been made, in accordance with the formula prescribed. Writ petitioner’s overall grading comes to ‘good’ while that of respondent No.2 to ‘very good’. Thus, there is no flaw or illegality in the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, …4… calling for its quashing, by exercise of extra ordinary power, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. October 20, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J