Home Department must provide information to CGPSC within stipulated time to conclude pending promotion processes.

The petitioner, serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Prison (Gazetted), became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, District Jail (Class-II) in 2016.

Although the Department of Home (Jail) initiated the promotion process that year, the proceedings remained pending for nearly a decade.

Respondent No. 3 (CGPSC) contended that despite sending seven reminders between October 2016 and July 2017 to the Department of Home Affairs requesting necessary data and the list of eligible candidates, the State failed to respond, thereby stalling the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The petitioner sought a writ to finalize the 2016 promotion process and grant benefits with retrospective effect.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to conclude the long-pending promotion process initiated in the year 2016 for the post of Superintendent, District Jail.

2. Whether the administrative delay by the State Department in providing information to the Public Service Commission constitutes negligence warranting judicial intervention.

The court relied on the principles of administrative efficiency and the fundamental right of an employee to be considered for promotion in a timely and fair manner.

The court emphasized the obligation of State departments to provide requisite data to the Public Service Commission for the functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

While no specific statute was cited, the court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address administrative negligence and procedural delays in service matters.

The court observed a clear trajectory of administrative negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1 (State Department of Home Affairs).

Despite the CGPSC (Respondent No. 3) demonstrating proactive efforts to finalize the promotion process through multiple letters sent throughout 2016 and 2017, the State Department failed to provide the necessary eligibility information.

The court determined that the stagnation of the petitioner’s promotion process since 2016 was not due to a lack of eligibility or vacancies, but solely due to the State's failure to perform its ministerial duty of supplying information to the Commission.

Consequently, the court found it necessary to mandate a time-bound schedule to rectify this delay without delving into the substantive merits of the promotion itself.

The court directed the Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, to provide all information sought by the CGPSC within 45 days.

Furthermore, the CGPSC was directed to convene the DPC and take a final decision regarding the promotion of the petitioner and other eligible candidates within a further period of 90 days thereafter.

The petition was disposed of with these specific time-bound directions.