Title: H.P. Public Service Commission VS Roop Lal and others
Decided on: 9th October, 2023
LPA No. 650 of 2011 alongwith connected matters.
CORAM: Hon’ble Justices M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Introduction
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stated that as “seniority-cum-merit” and “merit-cum-seniority” principles have different applications and meanings, it is best to avoid combining them while making decisions regarding promotions.
Facts of the Case
In 2007, Roop Lal, an agriculture inspector, filed a petition contesting Satinder Singh Thakur’s promotion to the position of Block Development Officer (BDO). Lal and Thakur both started out in January 1988 as Agriculture Inspectors before getting their confirmation in 1994.In accordance with the quota for Agriculture Development Officer/Extension Officer (ADO/EO) (AGR), the Departmental Promotion Committee (DP C) recommended Thakur for promotion to BDO.
Lal contested this promotion partly because the position in question was a selection role and “merit-cum-seniority” was the standard that had to be adopted. Based on his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), he claimed that he had a stronger claim and greater merit for the promotion. The single bench upheld Roop Lal’s arguments and ordered the authorities to start a new process for promoting people to the position of BDO after tossing down Thakur’s promotion. The State, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and Thakur approached the division bench in protest of this ruling.
Courts analysis and decision
The main question was whether seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority should be used to determine advancement to the BDO job, which was deemed a “selection” role.
According to the court, the BDO promotion was in fact based on “merit-cum-seniority.” As a result, seniority simply determined eligibility, and merit was the main consideration for advancement. Now, where the promotion is based on’merit-cum-seniority,’ seniority is not the deciding factor. The officer’s merit is highlighted.
Further it was noted that the DPC did not independently evaluate the ACRs and did not take into account the whole service record. This was a critical error because none of the three candidates received the same final ACR grades.
Reiterating the principle laid down in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and another Vs. High Court of Gujarat 2023, the court observed, “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.”
But it emphasised that the DPC must look further when deciding whether to promote officers, taking into account their individual accomplishments, obstacles they overcame, and significant contributions they made in their roles. Promotion decisions shouldn’t simply be based on overall ACR ratings, it said.
The official respondents were instructed to call a fresh DPC and reconsider the promotions of respondent No. 4, the petitioner, and Khem Chand Sharma in light of the court’s upholding the Single Judge’s decision to revoke the promotion.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan
