Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Assessment of ACRs of Assistant Divisional Accountants in the zone of Consideration for promotion
to the post of Divisional Accountant under Accounts and Treasuries Department
Sl.No. Name of Officer 94-95 95-6 96-97 97-98 98-99 Overall
1. Khawmpuithangi VG VG VG G VG V.Good
2. A.Lianhmingthangi VG VG G VG VG V.Good
3. P.C.Hmarthuama G G G VG VG Good
4. Vanlalghaka G VG VG G VG Good
5. BP Jaisi G VG VG VG G Good
6. JH Hmingmuana VG G G G VG Good
7. C.Lalnuntluanga G G G VG G Good
8. Lalropianga VG G VG G G Good
9. Lalduhawma VG VG G VG Os V.Good
10. Zokhuma VG VG G VG Os V.Good
11. Lalmuansanga Huamte G VG VG VG VG V.Good
12. Lalhmingliani Pachuau(93-94) G VG VG VG VG V.Good
The writ petitioners’ name occurred at Sl.Nos.3 and 4 whereas name of private respondent Nos.5
and 6 occurred at Sl.Nos.9 and 11. The petitioners were not promoted, instead private respondent
Nos.5 and 6 were promoted on the ground that their bench mark was ‘Very Good’ whereas the
petitioners had obtained benchmark as ‘Good’. This led to the writ petitioners to challenge their
supersession by respondent Nos.5 and 6 by filing writ petition (C) No.123/2000.
The learned Single Judge relying on the Clause 3.5(i) of the instruction held that the officers getting
bench mark as ‘Very Good’ cannot supersede officers with bench mark ‘Good’ as their names in the
promotion panel have to be included in order of seniority in the feeder cadre irrespective of the bench
mark. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 25.7.2001 and quashed the promotion of
the private respondents.
Mizoram PSC
The Chairman of the Mizoram Public Service Commission has come up in appeal. It may be observed
here that the private respondents Nos.5 and 6 in the writ petition have not filed any appeal so far.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
773