`IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1261 of 2002. Judgment Reserved on: 5.6.2008. Date of decision: 20.06.2008. Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar …Petitioner Versus Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam and Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his non-consideration for promotion from E4 to E5 category from the due date. The petitioner pleads that he joined respondent No.1 as Liaison Protocol Officer in the E2 Grade. He was promoted from the post of Senior Protocol and Liaison Officer in the E-3 Grade to the post of Deputy Manager (P&A) (which is admittedly an E4 level post) w.e.f. 1.7.1997 by an order dated 24.3.1998. The petitioner pleads which fact is not disputed that according to the promotion policy (Annexure P-1), clause (3.1) 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 stipulates that promotion up to E7 level is to be made on the basis of seniority, merit, grade service, efficiency, suitability and availability of vacancy. Consideration for this purpose is to be made twice a year i.e. on Ist January and Ist July as provided for by clause-3.3. Clause-5.3 of the policy provides a method for consideration, namely: “5.3. Executives in the grades of E6 and below, who are found fit for promotion will be considered for promotion effective from the standard dates, as mentioned below: (a) Executives who complete the eligibility period as on Ist January shall be considered for promotion from Ist January; and (b) Executives who complete the eligibility period as on Ist July be considered for promotion from Ist July.” The appraisal system applicable for assessing the record etc. of the incumbent provides under clause-6.4 and grade service in clause-7.1 which reads: “6.4 The appraisal System will be on a 5 point scale, as defined in the 3 Appraisal formats. For the purpose of promotion to the next higher grades up to the grade E6 to E7 and below the ratings given in the Annual Appraisal/Assessment Reports shall be converted in points, as under, subject to overall assessment by moderation committee. Ratings Points rating for promotion Exceptional 15 Very Effective 12 Effective & Competent 9 Average 6 Not satisfactory Nil” “7.1 The points for grade service i.e. service rendered by the Executive in their respective grades upto the level E6 and below shall be as under: _______________________________________ Grade Service Point rating for promotion From E1 to E2 From E4 to E5 E2 to E3 and and E5 to E6 E3 to E4 and E6 to E7. 3 years 18 9 4 years 20 11 5 years 22 13 6 years 25 15 _______________________________________ Two other clauses of the policy may be noticed i.e. criteria for promotion to next higher 4 grade. For the purposes of promotion to the E5 category clause-8.2 and 8.2.1 provides: “8.2 For Promotion From E4 to E5, E5 to E6 & E6 to E7 Grade: 8.2.1 Factors which are to be taken into account for determining the suitability for promotion of an executive in the above grades and the weightages thereof will be as under: Factors Maximum Points Performance Appraisal Ratings (For last 3 yrs) 45 Grade Service 15 DPC 40 8.2.2 Points for performance appraisal ratings will be as per para 6.4 and for grade service will be as per para 7.1. 8.2.3 The “Qualifying Points” for “Promotability” shall be 75” According to the petitioner, he became due for promotion from E4 to E5 grade w.e.f. 1.7.2000. According to him, the Departmental Promotion Committee was not held in April, 2000 as required under the Promotion Policy on account of the pendency of the writ petition filed by the association of NJPC Employees against the HPSEB. This Departmenal Promotion Committee was held on 20.3.2001 on which the petitioner was considered. The petitioner was 5 surprised that he was not promoted from due date whereas his juniors were promoted. It is his case that the relevant ACRs at the time of the consideration of the petitioner were for the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 as he was due for promotion from the year 1.7.2000, but these were not considered, in-fact the ACR for 1997 was ignored. He has alleged bias against the Company Secretary of respondent No.1 as he was unfavourably inclined towards the petitioner for his Union activities etc. He submits that the Director (Personnel) Shri O.P. Sharma, who was the Head of Department and concerned Director, had assessed his ACRs for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 as excellent and had recommended him for promotion. His second point of challenge is that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not properly constituted as required by clause-9.1 of the policy which reads: “9.1 For the purpose of promotion of executive of the next higher grade up to E7 grade, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall be constituted, with the approval of Dir(Pers)/CMD, as under: a) For promotions in the executive cadre from E1 to E4 grade:- 1) Director (Personnel) 2) Concerned Director for the employee 3) Another Director of the Corporation 6 4) SC/ST representatives. b) For promotions in the executive cadre from E4 to E5 & above:- 1) Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2) Director(Personnel) 3) Concerned Functional Director 4) SC/ST representatives. The concerned GM or HOD may be invited by DPC for clarifications if any but will not form a part of DPC. He submits that the Company Secretary who was In-charge of (P&A) and one Director(Civil) participated in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee which resulted in improper consideration and of a Committee constituted and comprised of officers, officials not competent to assess the petitioner. Personal bias, as noticed, was alleged against the Company Secretary. These allegations have been denied on affidavit by the respondents who have submitted that the apprehensions of the petitioner are not borne out from the record. I called for the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee of consideration of the petitioner for the years as pleaded in the writ. I do not find from the record that the allegations made by the petitioner are substantiated in any manner. In-fact, the ACRs of the petitioners were rightly considered 7 for the year 1997, 1998 and 1999. Other apprehensions that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not properly constituted, is not borne out from the record as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and one representative of the SC/ST was present in the first Departmental Promotion Committee. The Company Secretary or the Director(Civil) did not participate in any proceedings. In-fact the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was also officiating as the Director(Personnel) and in that capacity was also the Assessing Authority as the concerned functional Director. There is nothing on the record to show or suggest even remotely any bias against the petitioner. The petitioner has been assessed fairly and it cannot be said that there is anything on the record to suggest bias or a personal grudge against him. Moreover, allegations of bias cannot be accepted in the absence of the concerned party(s) being impleaded as respondent(s) and answering that particular allegation levelled against him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. June 20, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge. 8