Jharkhand High Court
Central Silk Board vs Daniel Lakra on 8 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
(Against the order dated 24th February 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in WP(S) No. 6556 of 2006)
LPA No. 129 of 2011
------
1. Central Silk Board, through its Chairman having its office at B.M.T.
Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka
2. The Chief Executive Officer, and Member Secretary B.M.T. Layout,
Madiwala, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka.
3. The Joint Director (Administration) B.M.T. Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore-
560068
4. The Director, the Central Tasar Research and Training Institute Nagri, PO
and PS Ratu, District Ranchi.
5. The Joint Director (Administration), the Central Tasar Research and
Training Institute Nagri, PO and PS Ratu, District Ranchi.
..... ...... Respondent Nos.1 to 5/Appellants
Versus
1. Daniel Lakra, son of Late Johan Lakra, resident of opposite Pragati
Enclave, Dibdih, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi.
..... ...... Petitioner/Respondent
2. Manoranjan Das, father's name not known to the petitioner, Deputy
Director (Administration) Lodiagarh, Jorhat, PO and PS Jorhat, Aasam.
.... ...... Respondent No.6/Respondent
--------
(Through V.C.)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sachidanand Das, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
-------
ORDER
th
8 February 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The Central Silk Board, Bangalore is in appeal against the order
dated 24th February 2011 passed in WP(S) No. 6556 of 2006.
2. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent")
made a prayer before the writ Court for promotion to the post of Deputy
Director with effect from April 2006.
3. The aforesaid claim of the respondent was premised on the
ground that juniors to him were promoted while his legitimate claim for
promotion to the post of Deputy Director was ignored.
4. The respondent challenged propriety and legality of the
proceedings dated 27th January 2006 of the Departmental Promotion
Committee which was convened for filling up the post of Deputy Director
(Administration & Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000 to 15,200/- under
the Central Silk Board, Bangalore, on the ground that within next six months
on the basis of the same service records he was found eligible and by
memorandum dated 13th November 2006 promoted as Deputy Director
(Administration & Accounts).
5. In short, submissions made before the learned writ Court was
that exclusion of the respondent from the list of eligible candidates for
promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Administration & Accounts) must
be held vitiated.
6. In the present proceeding, the appellants have referred to ACR
entries of the respondent which pertain to the year 1988-89, 1993-94,
1994-95, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. It is further stated that performance of the
respondent from the year 2000-01 to 2002-03 was 'Average' and since the
average grading is treated as below the minimum required grading for further
promotion the same was not communicated to the respondent.
7. We have gone through the pleadings before the writ Court and
find that no material even service records of the respondent was produced
before the writ Court in support of the assessment of the respondent by the
Departmental Promotion Committee in the grade of 'Average' on the basis of
which he was found 'Unfit'.
8. Mr. Sachidanand Das, the learned counsel for the appellants
referring to the judgment in "Union of India and Another v. A.K. Narula"
(2007) 11 SCC 10 submits that the decision of the Departmental Promotion
Committee cannot be taken lightly and interfered by the writ Court unless it
is established that the said decision was vitiated on account of bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness.
9. In " A.K. Narula", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
"15. The guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to
DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading
recorded in CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of
the entries in CRs. DPC is required to make an overall assessment
of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting
the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the
process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference.
Where DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable
manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all
candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of
assessment by DPC, the court will not interfere (vide SBI v. Mohd.
Mynuddin, UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev and Badrinath v. Govt. of
T.N.). The Review DPC reconsidered the matter and has given
detailed reasons as to why the case of the respondent was not
similar to that of R.S. Virk. If in those circumstances, the Review
DPC decided not to change the grading of the respondent for the
period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 from "good" to "very good", the
overall grading of the respondent continued to remain as "good".
There was no question of moving him from the block of officers
with the overall rating of "good" to the block of officers with the
overall rating of "very good" and promoting him with reference to
DPC dated 13-6-1990. In the absence of any allegation of mala
fide or bias against DPC and in the absence of any arbitrariness in
the manner in which assessment has been made, the High Court
was not justified in directing that the benefit of upgrading be given
to the respondent, as was done in the case of R.S. Virk."
10. As we have recorded that the respondent raised specific
challenge before the writ Court that grading by the Departmental Promotion
Committee as average was not based on records. The service records of the
respondent for the period under consideration, that is, 2000-01 to 2005-06
were never produced before the writ Court nor have those records been
appended with the present Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, we are
reluctant to accept the stand of the appellants that ACR entries of the
respondent for the relevant period, which were not communicated to him,
were in the grade of 'Average'.
11. The learned writ Court has observed as under:
".....................
From the said averment it further appears that when the
recommendation was made by Departmental Promotion Committee
in the month of October, 2006 for promotion of the petitioner the
A.C.Rs. of last five years were taken into account and as there was
improvement in the performance in the last two years, the
petitioner was considered to be fit to be promoted to the post of
Deputy Director, but the same A.C.Rs. of last five years including
the A.C.Rs of last two years were never considered to be good
enough in the month of April, 2006 warranting promotion to the
petitioner to the post of Deputy Director. In absence of any
explanation in this regard it is beyond any comprehension as to
why the same A.C.R. at one point of time was considered to be bad
and at other point of time was considered to be good enough to
make recommendation for promotion to the petitioner. This simply
smacks arbitrariness on the part of the authority not to make
recommendation for promotion of the petitioner in April, 2006
rather to make recommendation to promote junior to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to promotion with
effect from the month of April, 2006. Consequently, he would be
entitled to other benefits."
12. By the order dated 13th November 2006, the respondent was
promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Administration & Accounts) in the
pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- and he was held entitled for the
monetary benefits from the date he assumed the charge of the post. We
further find that there is no order passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal
staying implementation of the writ Court's order and we are informed that the
respondent superannuated from his service on 30th November 2006. Not only
that there is no material produced by the appellants to substantiate and
support the pleadings, the financial implications involved in the present case
are confined to just six months and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere
in this matter.
13. Accordingly, LPA No. 129 of 2011 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 8th February 2022
Nibha/Madhav-NAFR
