JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, C.J.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that while granting promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, the respondent No. 3 who was junior to him has been preferred. The case of the petitioner is that in fact respondent No. 3 is junior to the petitioner and this fact is apparent if one looks at the earlier seniority lists which were issued from time-to-time. In the various seniority lists issued upto the year 1994, the petitioner was always shown as senior to the respondent No. 3, but the position was changed sometime in the year 1997, when the respondent Corporation considered only the question of seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 inter se and decided that respondent No. 3 was senior to the petitioner. According to the petitioner no opportunity was given to him to object to the claim of the respondent No. 3 claiming seniority over the petitioner. It is also pointed out to us that while determining the seniority inter se of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, the respondent Corporation did not consider other cases which may have possibly arisen in connection with the tentative seniority list issued in the year 1994.
2. It appears that the petitioner aggrieved by the determination of seniority without giving him an opportunity of being heard in the matter, filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 147/97, which was withdrawn on assurance given by the respondents that they would hear the petitioner before passing any final order. The petitioner was thereafter heard and the Order was passed maintaining the seniority of the respondent No. 3 That has now been challenged in the instant Writ Petition.
3. It appears that during the pendency of the Writ Petition the respondent Corporation proposed to grant promotions and a grievance was raised before this Court by the petitioner about the proposed action of the respondent Corporation. It appears that this Court had passed an Order at the stage of admission itself that any action taken during the pendency of the Writ Petition will be subject to the outcome of the petition. It further appears that respondent No. 3 was ultimately selected for promotion and appointed as Deputy General Manager by Office Order dated 23rd June, 2000.
4. It is also brought to our notice by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 have both sought voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and both have since retired with effect from 31st December, 2000. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of seniority must be considered by this Court because in case the petitioner is found to be senior, his case for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager may be reconsidered and he may be given the monetary benefit of deemed promotion, even though it may not be possible to actually promote him to the higher post of Deputy General Manager since he has retired from service.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contend that the post of Deputy General Manager is a selection post and the D.P.C. which considered the eases of the eligible candidates must have made its reeommendation on the basis of merit. With a view to verify the matter, we requested learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation to produce before us the Minutes of the D.P.C. We have perused the Minutes of the D.P.C. which held its meeting on '12th May, 2000 and recommended suitable candidates for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. From the Minutes of the meeting, which have also been shown by the learned Counsel to the petitioner, it appears that the Committee went into the Confidential Reports of the candidates, who were in the zone of consideration, for the last five years and assessed their performance. It appears from the assessment made by the Committee that the respondent No. 3 was given the grading, "very good", whereas the petitioner was rated as "average". In the merit list prepared by the D.P.C., respondent No. 3 ranked first while the petitioner ranked fifth. It therefore appears that the recommendation of the D.P.C. is based on merit and not on seniority. Seniority was taken into account only for determining the zone of consideration and undoubtedly the case of the petitioner for promotion was also considered. We are, therefore, satisfied that even if we went into the question of seniority of the petitioner that would not make any difference to the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. Since both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 have since taken voluntary retirement, we do not propose to go into a question which is merely academic. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed