Dr. M. Rammohan Rao vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and others

A.S. Bhate, J.—The appellant/ petitioner challenges the action of respondents in not promoting him to the post of Executive Director. The appeal arises due to failure of the writ petitioner to convince the learned single Judge in accepting his contention.

The undisputed facts show that petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer in respondent No.1-Corporation some time in 1965. He was later appointed as Supernumerary Assistant Mechanical Engineer in November, 1966. Later he was impaneled by the appropriate Selection Committee by its Minutes dated 12-6-1976 for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager. The said panel was valid upto 1977. Before he could be promoted certain delinquencies were detected on his part by the Management. He was placed under suspension from 23-5-1977 and after an enquiry, penalty was imposed by order dated 10-5-1979 holding that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager and his pay was reduced. This was challenged by the petitioner, in a civil suit and he claimed that he should be promoted. His suit was dismissed and the said dismissal of the suit was confirmed in SA No.227 of 1980 by this Court. Later, another disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service on 8-11-1983. The same was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition but, in Writ Appeal No.94 of 1987 this Court set aside order of dismissal and substituted the dismissal with the penalty of withholding only two annual increments. The said order became final due to dismissal of the SLP filed by the Management. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated in service after dismissal of the SLP in the Supreme Court. The petitioner''s case was considered for promotion by the appropriate Selection Committee in February, 1993 by treating him to be in continuous service till 8-11-1983 but the Committee found him unsuitable to reach the necessary standards for next promotion which was admittedly a Selection Post. This was challenged by filing WP No.3586 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed for default on 20th September, 1996. The said dismissal has become final. Then he challenged the decision of the Selection Committee to the effect that he is not fit for promotion and the same has become final due to dismissal of the writ petition No.3586 of 1993.

The petitioner then filed another writ petition No.5211 of 1993 claiming that respondents action of denying him promotion is invalid. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24-12-1996. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed that if he was found fit for promotion between 1982 to 1992 his seniority should be fixed above his immediate juniors who were promoted. The respondents were directed to reopen the sealed cover and communicate the decision to the petitioner. A Departmental Selection Committee was constituted by respondent No. 1 Corporation which held meeting on 12-12-1994 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Regional Manager but found him unsuitable and unfit to be promoted to that post and the same was communicated to the petitioner. This was done after opening the sealed cover containing selection of the petitioner as directed by this Court in WP No.5211 of 1993 and Selection-Committee interviewed the petitioner on 2-3-1997 to consider the case of the petitioner as per Guidelines existing for the respective elections which were held in i) August, 1984; ii) March, 1985; iii) November, 1986; iv) September, 1988 and v) lastly in February, 1992. The Selection Committee interviewed the petitioner on 22nd of March, 1997 and found that he was not suitable for promotion for any of the years referred above. This was informed to the petitioner on 24th May, 1997. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was decided against the petitioner and it is now subject matter of the writ appeal.

The respondent have filed a counter setting out all the facts and have pointed out that writ petitioner was duly considered as directed by the Court for all the years after he was reinstated in service when the order of his dismissal from service was set aside by the Court.

The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has contended very vehemently that the Selection Committee as formulated consisted of three Members. However only two Members were present when petitioner was interviewed. It is argued that absence of one Member vitiated the proceedings of the Selection-Committee and hence the decision of the Selection-Committee that writ petitioner was not suitable for promotion is unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has pointed out that the Rules did not any where provided that a particular quorum was necessary for holding the proceedings by the Selection Committee. It may also be pointed out that the Two Members of the Committee have not deferred in their opinion. Therefore, for arguments sake even if it is assumed that the third Member could have taken a different view, ultimately the majority decision would have prevailed. This is only to point out the redundancy of the appellant''s argument. The fact is that as no quorum is provided, proceedings held by two Members of the Selection Committee are not invalid. It may be pointed out that out of the two Members of the Selection Committee one was totally an outsider being the Financial Adviser of the South Central Railways.

A faint attempt has been made to argue that the Selection Committee was not well disposed towards the petitioner. However, there are no concrete allegations of mala fides any where in the writ petition. Mala fides-- cannot be glibly averred or, attributed. The faint attempt to challenge the selection on ground of mala fides has to be rejected summarily.

Lastly it was contended that the marks which have been given by the Committee are not in accordance with the guidelines. It is contended that even if one more mark was allotted by the Committee to the petitioner for length of service, he would have become fit for the selection to the promotional post. The Courts have repeatedly held that once selection Committee is appointed, it is not for the Courts to substitute their opinions. The Expert Committee, particularly when one of the Members is totally an outsider, has to be presumed to know its job. It is highly objectionable, on the part of the petitioner to self assess himself. No one can judge his own merit. The selection does not suffer from any infirmity. Merely because the petitioner thought that the Selection Committee could have given him more marks, is no ground for challenging the selection.

Admittedly the promotion was by Selection. The petitioner has no right except his case being considered. He was considered and found unfit.

In the circumstances, we find that there is no merit whatsoever in the grievance raised by the petitioner/appellant. The writ appeal does not deserve any different fate than the writ petition itself. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.