DPC suggestion for promotion to Agri Director’s post ignored, HC quashes govt decision

The HP High Court has set aside a decision of the competent authority (Chief Minister in this case), which had rejected the case of Additional Director (Agriculture) Jeet Singh for the post of Director (Agriculture). While setting aside the aforesaid decision, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “it is quite apparent from the record that though the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) comprising the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner and the Secretary of the Personnel Department had recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion, being the only eligible candidate, the Chief Minister, being the Minister-in-Charge of the Personnel Department, did not approve the recommendation on the ground that “an IAS officer is posted as Director (Agriculture), as important projects are handled in the department, and at present an IAS officer is looking after the department.”

Justice Sharma observed that “having perused the aforesaid reasoning given by the competent authority (Chief Minister) for turning down the recommendation of the DPC, this court agrees with the submissions of the petitioner that no cogent and convincing reasoning has been given and rather for no justifiable reason, the chances of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Director have been marred”.

While allowing the petition, the court directed the state government to reconsider the recommendation of the DPC and thereafter pass appropriate orders with regard to the promotion of the petitioner.

The court stated that “since the petitioner is due to retire on June 30, this court hopes and trusts that the necessary action in terms of its directions shall be taken expeditiously, preferably, within 15 days.”

The court passed the order on the petition filed by Jeet Singh, who alleged that the competent authority had wrongly ignored him by not approving his name for the post of Director (Agriculture).

The petitioner further contended that the rules regarding filing the post of Director clearly provided that it shall be filled 100 per cent through promotion from among Additional Directors, Agriculture, with one year of regular service or regular service combined with continuous ad hoc service, if any, in the grade, failing which by promotion from among Additional Directors, Agriculture, having two years of regular service or regular service combined with continuous ad hoc service, if any. As an Additional Director, Agriculture, and Joint Director, Agriculture, the petitioner was fully eligible for being considered in terms of the aforesaid rule.