Wanlumlang Shabong vs Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council & Ors

H. S. Thangkhiew, J

The writ petitioner who is presently holding the post of Sub- Inspector Taxation Department, KHADC is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.01.2025, whereby the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, have been given promotion to the post of Inspector in the said Department.

Before adverting to the arguments, it is first to be noted that the service of the writ petitioner is captioned under Service-III of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961, in the Taxation Service/Department, and the same consists of Entry Level of Assistant Sub-Inspector, next higher post Sub-Inspector, and the present post is concerned with the promotion to the next higher post of Inspector Taxation.

Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, who have been accorded promotion are junior to the petitioner having joined service much later i.e. in the year 2019 and 2020 respectively, whereas the petitioner had entered service since 02.09.2104. The learned counsel further submits that though the Rules provides consideration for promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, in the instant case however, there has been no objective criteria applied by the respondents, which has deprived the petitioner of his due promotion, though he is the seniormost in the said cadre. It is also submitted that the denial it appears has been on the basis of a show cause notice dated 30.08.2019, that has been issued to the writ petitioner with regard to negligence in not attending office regularly and lack of responsibility. The learned counsel submits that to the show cause notice, a reply was duly filed and that the matter never proceeded thereafter. It is contended that as there was no Departmental proceeding drawn up against the writ petitioner, the denial of promotion being solely based on the issuance of the show cause notice, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and as such the entire selection process is liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments, which have been submitted in the form of a compilation : -

i) Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836

ii) Union of India vs. Tejinder Singh (1991) 4 SCC 129

iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704

iv) Coal India Ltd., & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625

v) Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725

vi) Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 345

vii) Harangthan Mawii vs. Lai Autonomous District Council & Ors. 2005 (2) GLT 588

Mr. W. Khyllep, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, has placed reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that consideration for promotion is governed by Rule-15 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961, and as per the said Rule, promotion to any service shall be made ordinarily on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, after careful examination of the character rolls, and special reports called for on the suitability of the eligible officers for promotion and other records. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Taxation from amongst the eligible Sub-Inspectors of Taxation, the said report had been called for, and on the recommendations made thereof, which reflected that the writ petitioner was not the most suitable candidate for promotion in terms of merit, promotion was accorded to respondents Nos. 5 & 6. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Performance Chart of Sub-Inspectors in the Taxation Department, which is annexed at Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein against the writ petitioner's name it has been shown to be 'irregular, show cause issued'. He then submits that thus, in full compliance with the prescribed Rules, promotions were granted to the respondents Nos. 5 & 6. He lastly submits there being no grounds for interference and the writ petition being without merit, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Dr. N. Mozika, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Sutnga, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, at the outset has submitted that the consideration for promotion as can be seen from the materials on record, the same was with the usual objective criteria i.e. assessment of the character rolls. He further submits that it is not a fact as alleged by the writ petitioner that the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner was the only ground for denial for promotion, but in fact as per the stipulation of the Rules and on the basis of the special report and due assessment, promotions were granted to the private respondents based on merit. The learned Senior counsel has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlai Maheta & Anr vs. High Court of Gujarat & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 972, wherein he submits that at Para-98 thereof, the principles of Merit-cum- Seniority have been outlined. The learned Senior counsel submits that merit therefore, plays a predominant role and seniority alone cannot be given primacy, and that comparative assessment of merit is crucial though not a mandatory factor.

With regard to the Judgments placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel has pointed out that the same would not be applicable to the instant case, inasmuch as, firstly it is not a case of departmental proceedings which were pending, and promotion being considered, and that the other cases referred to, are to do with seniority- cum-merit and not merit-cum-seniority. He therefore, submits that the Rules being adhered to, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, and liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the special nature of the Rules which apply only to the District Council it would be expedient to examine the concerned Rule 15, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -

"15. Promotion to any service, grade or post shall be made ordinarily on the basis of merit-cum-seniority after careful examination of the character rolls, special reports called for on the suitability of the eligible officers for promotion and other records. In cases of promotion to selection posts, whether administrative or technical, merit may be taken as the sole creation."

A perusal Rule-15 quoted above would show it mandates that promotion be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority after careful examination of character rolls and special reports. In the instant case, the petitioner has sought to make out a case that the denial of promotion has been due to the issuance of a show cause notice, wherein he has been found to be irregular in his duties, and that on the reply being filed, this aspect cannot be taken to be a disqualifying feature for consideration of promotion. A perusal of the Performance chart annexed at Annexure-C, however would show that after the word 'irregular' there exists a coma before the words 'show cause issued'. In comparison to the case of another eligible candidate who also have not been afforded promotion namely; one Shri Nehemaiah Mawkon appearing at Sl. No. 2, it is seen the note 'irregular and show cause issued'. A bare reading of these two captions would indicate that in the case of one candidate being irregular, show cause has been issued, whereas in the case of the writ petitioner shown to be irregular, the issuance of a show cause notice appears to be an added note. Notwithstanding these facts, the provision of the Rules having specifically allowed the respondents the latitude to consider the cases for promotion on the basis of merit and that the respondents Nos. 5 & 6, having been found more meritorious as per the Special Report, in the considered opinion of this Court no interference is called for. The Judgments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner not being relevant are not discussed or elaborated upon.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.