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

818
a place at Sl.No.8 of the seniority list of Jr. Administrative Grade. The 4 th respondent got promoted
to that grade only after the penalty period with prospective effect, which brought him down to Sl.No.15
in that list. But the grievance of the petitioner came to stalk when following the quashing an setting
aside of the penalty the said respondent was given retrospective promotion pushing him up at the top
of the list. The petitioner contends that if the 4 th respondent was not given retrospective promotion
and consequent seniority, his position would have been maintained at Sl.No.8 and thus he would have
been within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of selection grade. As he was graded
outstanding in all his ACRs and all other 7 senior officer were given a lower grade, he would have been
definitely promoted superseding others in view of the office memorandum dated 24.1.2005 which
indicates that for the vacancy arising before that date the previous procedure dated 10.10.2002
should be followed, as clarified by office memorandum dated 1.6.2005. According to the procedure
dated 10.10.2002 an officer graded outstanding would supersede the officers graded very good and
an officer graded very good would supersede officers assigned lower grade. The petitioner thus has
assailed in the writ petition the notification dated 6.10.2005 whereby the 4 th respondent was given
seniority above P.C.Lalthlamuana, he 6 th respondent herein. He has also assailed notification dated
21.12.2005 promoting respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 herein to the selection grade with effect from
29.4.2005.
Mizoram PSC
3. The State and other official respondents have contended inter alia that all the four private
respondents are admittedly senior to the petitioner in the lower grade and that though the 4 th respondent
was recommended for promotion to Jr. Administrative Grade with effect from 10.9.2001 by the DPC
the same could not be given effect to only because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and a
penalty of reduction of pay on 15.4.2002. However, after the penalty period he could be promoted
to that grade only prospectively and thus his position came down to 15 in the seniority list of Jr.
Administrative Grade. As his review petition was finally allowed on merit and his penalty was set
aside and quashed the respondent concerned had to open the earlier recommendation dated 10.9.2001.
Following the retrospective promotion his seniority position was automatically restored at the top of
the list and thus when the DPC was considering promotion to the selection grade against two vacancies
he along with seven others fell in the zone of consideration. As the retrospective promotion has not
been challenged by the petitioner, it is contended, the consequent seniority could also not be assailed
and so, very rightly, on the basis of that seniority the said respondents along with others came to be
considered for promotion to selection grade which suffers from no illegality. As the petitioner has gone