Court Directs Review-DPC Where Valid Promotion Recommendation Was Erroneously Excluded from Consideration

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector on October 3, 2013, in Nagar Panchayat, Sakri

On August 14, 2018, the State Government created an additional post of Revenue Sub Inspector in the same Nagar Panchayat

Being the senior-most Assistant Revenue Inspector, the petitioner’s name was recommended for promotion by the President-in-Council via a resolution dated September 20, 2018

However, during the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on September 26, 2018, the petitioner’s name was not considered under the pretext that the recommendation had not been received

The petitioner subsequently obtained documents through the RTI Act confirming that the recommendation was indeed forwarded to the Joint Director of Urban Administration and Development on the date of the resolution

Subsequently, Nagar Panchayat Sakri merged with Municipal Corporation Bilaspur on August 20, 2019, where the petitioner was placed at S. No. 24 in the Gradation List

The respondents contended that the petitioner lacked eligibility at the time of the DPC and that the petition had become infructuous due to the merger and the petitioner's current seniority status

Whether the respondent authorities are required to convene a review-DPC to consider the petitioner’s promotion based on documents proving that a valid recommendation existed at the time of the original DPC

The court applied the administrative principle that an eligible employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time the vacancy and the DPC arose

It further applied the principle that administrative errors or the failure of the authorities to acknowledge received recommendations necessitate the convening of a review-DPC to rectify the oversight

The court examined the RTI documents provided by the petitioner, which contradicted the respondents' claim that no recommendation was available during the DPC of September 26, 2018

The court found that the resolution by the President-in-Council was duly passed on September 20, 2018, and transmitted to the Joint Director on the same day

Therefore, the petitioner's exclusion from consideration was based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the availability of the recommendation

The court reasoned that despite the subsequent merger of the local bodies and the petitioner's current standing in a new gradation list, he was entitled to a review of his promotional prospects as they stood on the date of the original DPC

The court emphasized that this review must be conducted strictly under the rules that were in force at that specific time

The court held that the petitioner’s name must be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector based on the rules prevailing on that original date

The court ordered that this exercise be completed within 90 days from the receipt of the order