JUDGMENT Mitter, J -By this petition under Art 32 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged various orders made from time to time as being discriminatory and as such infringing Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the matter of his permotion The respondents are the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, three authorities of the said Commission (respondents 2 to 4) and four persons (respondents 5 to 8) who it is claimed have superseded the petitioner. 2. The facts are as follows:-The first respondent was established by the Central Act 43 of 1959 S 12(1) of that Act empowered the Commission to appoint such number of employees as it considered necessary Under sub-s. (2) of the section the functions and the terms and conditions of service of such employees were to be such as might be provided by regulations made under the Act Under S 26 of the Commission might, by general or special order in writing direct that all or any of its powers or duties might be exercised or discharged by any person specified in that behalf in the order. S. 31 gave powers to make rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act. Under S 32 the Commission was empowered to make regulations for enabling it to discharge its functions under the Act : such regulations might inter alia provide for the terms and conditions of service and scales of pay of its employees. A regulation bearing the date May 10, 1963 was made laying down the principles for the determination of seniority of officers of the staff in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Rule II ii) b of the said regulation relating to departmental promotees provided that if promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority cum-merit i.e seniority subect to the rejection of unfit, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall place the candidates into a consolidated seniority list based on the total length of service rendered in that grade/cadre and make recommodations for promotion on the basis of this list. A common seniority list in the Junior Transportation Inspectors Grade (renamed as Inspector Grade II) was prepared and the petitioner s name was shown therein as no 4 while respondents 5 and 6 in the present petition occupied the fifth and sixth places in that list. 3 The petitioner was appointed as Junior Transportation Inspector on April 5, 1951. A common seniority list in the Junior Transportation Inspectors Grade (renamed as Inspector Grade II) was prepared and the petitioner s name was shown therein as no 4 while respondents 5 and 6 in the present petition occupied the fifth and sixth places in that list. 3 The petitioner was appointed as Junior Transportation Inspector on April 5, 1951. Respondents 5 to 8 joined service in the same grade after the petitioner : respondent no. 5 joined on April 6, 1961; respondent no. 6 on April 22, 1961, respondent No. 7 on October 17, 1961 and respondent no 8 on October 1, 1961. A regulation numbering No. 16(16) 162 was framed on April 29, 1963 to the effect that no employee would be considered for promotion to a higher post in the Commission, unless he had completed a minimum period of two years service in the existing post. There was a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee on April 26, 1963 which had to consider the case of promotion of four Junior Transportation Inspectors to officiate as Senior Transportation Inspectors. On June 22, 1963 an order was made by respondent no. 2 promoting four persons including respondents 5 and 6 herein to officiate as Senior Transportation Inspectors. The petitioner s complaint is against this order as making a discrimination 6 herein to officiate as Senior Transportation Inspectors. The petitioner s complaint is against this order as making discrimination against him. On July 6, 1963 the petitioner made a representation against his supersession to the Controller of Transport. Therein he mentioned specifically that this had been done although his annual assessment reports were without any blemish. This was duly forwarded to the higher authorities. On October 5, 1963 an order was made on this representation to the effect that the promotions from Junior Transportation Inspectors to the Senior Transportation Inspectors had been made by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee after taking into consideration all the factors. This was duly forwarded to the higher authorities. On October 5, 1963 an order was made on this representation to the effect that the promotions from Junior Transportation Inspectors to the Senior Transportation Inspectors had been made by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee after taking into consideration all the factors. The petitioner however was not content with this and made an appeal to the Vice Chairman of the Commission on January 3, 1964 mentioning therein that the Director, Ahmedabad Project who had turned down his representation had nothing to say on the point of his claim to promotion as his annual confidential reports were without any blemish and further he asked to be given the reasons for this supersession so that he could make efforts to overcome his defects On March 11, 1964 the Director of Administration of respondent no. 1 recorded in writing that the petitioner s case had been considered by the Chairman and it had been decided that the same "may be reconsidered in the Departmental Promotion Committee likely to meet in the very near future" and that the petitioner was to be informed accordingly. The petitioner considered this to be virtually allowing his appeal and has made a complaint in the petition that respondents nos 2 and 3 never constituted any such Departmental Promotion Committee to consider his case, thereby violating Regulation 41 of August 9, 1963 which provided that "the authority which makes the order appealed against shall give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authority " 4 It appears that on April 1, 1964 a regulation was made, No. 17(34)/63 fixing the minimum period of five years for promotion of persons belonging to Class III Cadre to which the petitioner belonged. Reference was made to this in a letter dated 21st/30th December, 1964 of the Personnel Officer, copy whereof was sent to the petitioner stating that promotion of Junior Transportation Inspectors would not be considered before the completion of five years service. Thereupon the petitioner made a representation on January 4, 1965 to the effect that he had been discriminated and had suffered an irreparable loss. He made a request by letter dated July 20, 1965 addressed to the Chairman of the first respondent for a personal interview. Thereupon the petitioner made a representation on January 4, 1965 to the effect that he had been discriminated and had suffered an irreparable loss. He made a request by letter dated July 20, 1965 addressed to the Chairman of the first respondent for a personal interview. This was replied to on August 4, 1965 to the effect that his case could not be considerd before completion of five years service Respondent No. 7 was promoted as Senior Transportation Officer on March 23, 1S66 and respondent no. 8 was similarly promoted on March 14, 1966 although they had not completed five years service in the grade of Junior Transportation Inspector. Respondent no 5 was further promoted as Assistant Transportation Officer by an order dated August 9/10, 1966. The petitioner presented this petition on October 7, 1966 challenging the promotions of respondents nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 asking for an order of mandamus to quash all illegal and discriminatory orders made in that behalf with a further direction that the petitioner be promoted to the post of assistant transportation officer and be given the salary and emoluments to which he would be entitled consequent on such promotion. 5. The affidavit in opposition of the Secretary to Oil and Natural Gas Commission is to the following effect:-(a) It was not denied that in the year 1963 promotions from lower grade to higher were to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness rule and that a common seniority list of all the regions was maintained at that time (b) According to the practice then prevalent, persons who had put in two years service alone were to be considered for promotion. As a matter of fact, a regulation to that effect as already noted, had been framed on April 29, 1963. (c) The departmental promotion committee which met on April 26, 1963 considered six departmental candidates who were junior transportation Inspectors for promotion to the grade of senior transportation. Inspectors and the petitioner was one of them. (d) On account of unfavourable remarks in his confidential reports the petitioner was found unsuitable for promotion. (e) The departmental promotion Committee met again on June 12, 1963 to reconsider the case of the petitioner but they did not change their earlier decision. Inspectors and the petitioner was one of them. (d) On account of unfavourable remarks in his confidential reports the petitioner was found unsuitable for promotion. (e) The departmental promotion Committee met again on June 12, 1963 to reconsider the case of the petitioner but they did not change their earlier decision. (f) Before the next departmental promotion Committee could be constituted the certain conditions for recruitment and promotion to Class III posts in its transportation wing. Five years service was the minimum considered for promotion from the grade of junior transportation Inspectors to the senior grade. (g) All the representations made by the petitioner were duly considered but nothing could be done in the circumstances mentioned above. (h) By office memorandum dated December 28, 1965 the Commission decentralised the technical and non-technical cadres of Class III officers and regional heads were authorised to maintain their own seniority lists of the different categories of staff and to make promotions accordingly at their level. (i) The petitioner who was taken in the Western region could be considered for promotion only on the basis of his seniority in that region. (j) Respondents 7 and 8 being in the Northern region were promoted on the basis of seniority in their region. Although they had not completed five years service at the time of promotion, relaxation of the regulation was made in their case to four years experience as there was pressing demand from the various projects for senior transportation Inspectors. (k) The departmental promotion Committee constituted for the Northern region approved of the promotion of respondents 7 and 8. (l) On June 27, 1966 the departmental promotion Committee for the Western region approved of the name of the petitioner for promotion as senior transportation Inspector and the petitioner is now working in the said post in an officiating capacity. 6 From the above, it appears that although the petitioner was senior to respondents 5 and 6 in the year 1963, the departmental promotion Committee did not recommend his name for promotion on account of certain adverse remarks in his confidential reports. Although the Committee met for the second time in June, 1963 it did not find any reason to alter its decision. The representations of the petitioner which started on July 6, 1963 were of no avail and gave the petitioner no relief. Although the Committee met for the second time in June, 1963 it did not find any reason to alter its decision. The representations of the petitioner which started on July 6, 1963 were of no avail and gave the petitioner no relief. It is unfortunate that although the petitioner was informed that his case would be re-considered by the departmental promotion Committee, he was never informed as to why he had been superseded. By the time the respondents 7 and 8 came to be promoted the order for decentralisation of the staff in the different regions had taken effect and no complaint can be made by the petitioner because respondents 7 and 8 who were working in another region had been promoted while the petitioner who was senior to them was working as junior transportation Inspector. Nor can any grievance be made of the fact that respondents 7 and 8 had been promoted before the completion of five years service. As explained in the affidavit in opposition, relaxation of the regulation had to be made because of the special circumstances then prevailing. 7. In effect, therefore, the only complaint of the petitioner with which we are concerned is his supersession in June, 1969. In the affidavit in reply the petitioner has referred to the memo dated 12th February, 1962, (annexure 28) relating to confidential reports, their preparation and maintenance. According to paragraph 8 of this memo, it was necessary that every employee should know what his defects were so that he could remove the same, if possible. Paragraph 9 of the memo shows that it was open to an employee to make representations against adverse remarks. Reliance was pieced upon this paragraph as showing that if the petitioner had been given an opportunity of making representations against the adverse remarks relied on in this case, he might easily have satisfied the higher authorities that the remarks were uncalled for and unjustified. 8. Strong reliance was placed on the various letters containing representations made by the petitioner from July, 1963 where he had stated categorically that he had always received testimonials from his higher officers and that his confidential reports were without any blemish. It was only when the affidavit in opposition was filed that he came to know that he had not been given promotion in June, 1963 because of these a remarks. It was only when the affidavit in opposition was filed that he came to know that he had not been given promotion in June, 1963 because of these a remarks. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was a clear violation of the instructions regarding confidential remarks and the petitioner had been discriminated against on the basis of remarks which should never have been made or should never have been allowed to remain in the confidential reports or stand in the way of his promotion if an opportunity had been given to him to explain the same way. 9. It was not disputed that the instructions as to confidential reports have not been properly observed in this case. It is not suggested that the departmental promotion Committee acted mala fide. If the adverse remarks were there in the confidential reports it was the duty of the departmental promotion Committee to take note of them and come to a decision on a consideration of them. The Committee could not be expected to make investigation about the confidential reports. It appears to us that in this case there was no discrimination, purposeful or otherwise, and at the best, the Committee s taking into consideration confidential reports with respect to which the petitioner had been given no chance to make a representation was merely fortuitous. In such a state of affairs, we are not satisfied that any interference is called for and the rule will therefore be discharged. There will be no order as to costs. For Citation : 1970 Serv LR 116 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.