Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 946 (HP)

Jeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-07

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to forthwith give effect to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 12.11.2024 for the post of Director, Agriculture, and consider the petitioner's promotion in accordance with the applicable R&P rules; and ii. Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits, arising out of the petitioner's due and timely promotion; or” 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties are that petitioner herein, was initially appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Agriculture) on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh PublicService Commission in the year 1989. After his being promoted to the post of Subject Matter Specialist, he was promoted as Deputy Director in the office of respondent No.3 on 03.06.2019. On 01.02.2022, petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director, Agriculture on ad hoc basis, upon the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee ( for short, ‘D.P.C.’ ). On 10.01.2023, petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director on regular basis. After his being promoted to the post of Joint Director, Department circulated final seniority list of officers of H.P. Agricultural Services, Group-A (Gazetted) on 01.11.2023, thereby showing petitioner as senior-most officer (Group-A) Gazetted. On 31.07.2023, post of Director, Agriculture, fell vacant upon superannuation of one Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, however, at that time, post of Director was filled-up on secondment basis by Government by appointing Ms. Kumad Singh, an IAS Officer. On 04.03.2024, petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Director, Agriculture, whereafter he also become eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture, after completing two years of combined service as Joint Director and Additional Director, with the required six months of service as Additional Director. Vide communication dated 19.09.2024, Secretary, Agriculture i.e. respondent No.1 apprised Secretary, Personnel i.e. respondent No.2 that petitioner has become eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture and as such, matter be placed before the D.P.C. On 12.11.2024, D.P.C. meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Personnel) and Secretary (Agriculture). Vide communication dated 19.09.2024, Secretary, Agriculture i.e. respondent No.1 apprised Secretary, Personnel i.e. respondent No.2 that petitioner has become eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture and as such, matter be placed before the D.P.C. On 12.11.2024, D.P.C. meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Personnel) and Secretary (Agriculture). Though D.P.C. found petitioner eligible/suitable for promotion to the post of Director, but since no order ever came to be passed by appointing authority with regard to appointment/promotion of the petitioner on recommendation made by the D.P.C., he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though post of Director, Agriculture, is required to be filled-up 100% by way of promotion and as per recommendation made by D.P.C., petitioner was fully eligible to be appointed against the post of Director, but yet for no cogent and convincing reason, petitioner is not being offered appointment/promotion to the post in question, who is otherwise due to retire on 30.06.2025. 4. While making this Court peruse Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-7), Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that in no eventuality, an IAS Officer can be posted as Director, however, in the instant case, an IAS Officer, is manning the post for almost two years to the detriment of Officers of H.P. Agricultural Service, Group-A (Gazetted). He submitted that after having served Department for 37 years, petitioner herein has been able to reach the top post in the Department i.e. Director, but his rightful claim is being defeated purposely by some vested interest for no fault of him. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that an employee has vested right of consideration for promotion and in the event of his being recommended by D.P.C. for promotion, promotion cannot be denied without there being any plausible reasons. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General representing the respondents, while supporting the impugned action of respondents, in not appointing the petitioner against the post of Director, despite favourable recommendation by D.P.C., vehemently argued that petitioner though has right of consideration, but he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General representing the respondents, while supporting the impugned action of respondents, in not appointing the petitioner against the post of Director, despite favourable recommendation by D.P.C., vehemently argued that petitioner though has right of consideration, but he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. He submitted that recommendations made by D.P.C. are not binding upon the appointing authority, rather, appointing authority, on the basis of record or other relevant factors, can always disagree with the recommendations made by the D.P.C. in public interest. He submitted that since important projects of Department are being handled by an IAS Officer, who has been otherwise holding the post of Director for last two years, it may not be in the interest of public at large to promote the petitioner against the post of Director, that too for a period of two months only, rather, in that eventuality, continuity of project works may hamper. While referring to Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-7), Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General further argued that on account of unavailability of eligible officer of Department, an IAS/HAS Officer can also be appointed as a Director. He submitted that since none from the Department was eligible to be promoted against the post of Director, an IAS Officer was posted as Director in the year 2023, who is still continuing and her continuation is in the interest of public at large. Lastly, Mr. Rattan, learned Advocate General, submitted that otherwise on account of subsequent developments, present petition has been rendered infructuous. He submitted that since recommendation made by D.P.C. has not been accepted by the competent authority, decision taken in that regard by competent authority is required to be laid challenge. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex in Union of India and Others Vs. N.P. Dhamania and Others , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 1. 6. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner herein had become eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture, on 04.09.2024, after his having completed two years of combined service as Joint Director and Additional Director, with the required six months of service as Additional Director. 6. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner herein had become eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture, on 04.09.2024, after his having completed two years of combined service as Joint Director and Additional Director, with the required six months of service as Additional Director. It is also not in dispute that D.P.C. in its meeting convened on 12.11.2024 found petitioner eligible for promotion to the post of Director and accordingly it made recommendation to the Government for promoting the petitioner as Director of Agriculture Department. Though recommendation by D.P.C. were made on 12.11.2024, but till date, same has not been given effect to, as a result thereof, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to appoint/promote him as Director, pursuant to recommendation made by D.P.C. 8. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have filed reply under the signatures and affidavit of Special Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein facts as have been taken note hereinabove have not been disputed, rather stand duly admitted. Attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the ground that since petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2025, on attaining the age of superannuation, it may not be in the larger public interest to promote him as a Director, which post at relevant time is otherwise being manned by an IAS Officer. 9. Since no plausible and cogent reason ever came to be put forth by the respondents in their reply for not accepting the recommendation made by the D.P.C., this Court deemed it necessary to cause production of record. Pursuant to directions passed by this Court, learned Advocate General has produced record with regard to recommendations made by D.P.C. as well as decision taken thereupon by competent authority. It would be apt to take note of notings, upon which subsequently decision of competent authority came to be taken: “Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (Appointment-I) FILE NO. PER(A-I)B(2)-3/76-VI SUBJECT: DPC FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, HP. Dy. No. 1879041/AP-I/20.09.2024 Ps/1-43: The AD (Agriculture) has furnished the proposal for convening the meeting of the DPC for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture. PER(A-I)B(2)-3/76-VI SUBJECT: DPC FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, HP. Dy. No. 1879041/AP-I/20.09.2024 Ps/1-43: The AD (Agriculture) has furnished the proposal for convening the meeting of the DPC for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture. The post of Director, Agriculture was lying vacant w.e.f. 01.08.2023 due to retirement of Shri Rajesh Kaushik, the then Director, Agriculture, HP on 31.07.2023. Thereafter, Smt. Kumad Singh, IAS (HP: 2015) was posted as Director, Agr., HP on25.09.2023(F/A). Presently, she is continuing on the said post. The method of recruitment, as per the R&P Rules for the post of Director, Agriculture, HP, notified by the AD (Agriculture) vide its notification dated 29.08.2024, is as under:- Col. No.10 Method of recruitment, whether by Direct Recruitment or promotion, secondment, by transfer and the percentage of post(s) to be filled in by various methods. 100% by promotion failing which by secondment from IAS/ HAS cadre. Col. No.11 In case of recruitment by promotion secondment, transfer, grade from which promotion/secondment/ transfer to be made. By promotion from amongst the Addl. Directors, Agriculture with one year's regular service or regular combined with continues adhoc service, if any, in the grade failing which by promotion from amongst the Addl. Directors, Agriculture having two years regular service or regular combined with continues adhoc service, if any, as Additional Director, Agriculture and Joint Director, Agriculture, which shall also include essential service of six months as Additional Director, Agriculture, failing which by secondment from IAS/HAS cadre. The AD has submitted that as per the R&P rules for the post of Director, Agriculture, only one incumbent i.e. Shri Jeet Singh, Additional Director, Agriculture is eligible for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture under "failing which" clause. The service particulars of the aforesaid officer are as under:- Sr. No. Name of the officer DOB/DOR Date of Appt. as Joint Director Date of Apptt. As Addl. Director 1. Sh. Jeet Singh, Addl. Director, Agriculture 14.06.1964/ 30.06.2025 01.02.2022 to 03.03.2024 (2 years, 1 month) 04.03.2024 to till date (More than six months) The AD has furnished the integrity certificate as well as Vigilance Clearance Certificate, issued by the Vigilance Department vide its letter No. Home(Vig.)A(8)-5/2023(VCC-Agr.), dated 18.09.2024 (P/6). The AD has also submitted that he has passed the department examination and submitted the Assets and Liabilities Returns for year ending 2023 (copies of assets and liabilities retums are at P/38-43). The AD has also submitted that he has passed the department examination and submitted the Assets and Liabilities Returns for year ending 2023 (copies of assets and liabilities retums are at P/38-43). As per the guiding principles issued by the Department of Personnel on 27/02/2016 (F/B), the post is required to be filled up by "Selection on the basis of pre-determined benchmark, which is Very Good for the posts carrying a Grade pay of Rs.7600/- (pre-revised) and above and for 1 post, 5 eligible officers are to be considered for promotion. However, there is only one eligible officer in the feeder category. Further, as per the DoP's guidelines issued on 21.06.2016 (F/C), in case of an officer is considered for promotion to the 'Selection' posts carrying grade pay of Rs.7600/- (pre-revised) and above, the prescribed benchmark of 'Very Good' is to be invariably met in all the APARs of five years under consideration. The constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, is as under:- 1. Chief Secretary Chairman 2. Financial Commissioner Member. 3. Secretary of the Department Member The draft memorandum has been prepared accordingly. File is submitted for kind perusal and for obtaining suitable date and time from the worthy Chief Secretary to chair the meeting of the DPC for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture. SD/- 28.09.2024 S.O.(DOA-I) In view of the above, file is submitted for consideration and to given convenient date and time to convene the meeting of DPC to consider promotion of Additional Director, Agriculture to the post of Director, Agriculture the Chief Secretary may also nominate Secy.(Pers.) as 1 st Member of the DPC. Submitted pl. N/9-ante: Meeting of the DPC for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture was held today. Minutes of the DPC meeting are placed below for approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Secretary (Personnel) 12.11.2024 Worthy CS 12/11 Not approved. HCM An IAS Service officer is posted as Director (Agriculture) as important projects are handled in the deptt, and at present IAS Officer is handling the Deptt. SD/- 17/4/25” 10. Minutes of the DPC meeting are placed below for approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Secretary (Personnel) 12.11.2024 Worthy CS 12/11 Not approved. HCM An IAS Service officer is posted as Director (Agriculture) as important projects are handled in the deptt, and at present IAS Officer is handling the Deptt. SD/- 17/4/25” 10. It is quite apparent from aforesaid record that though D.P.C. comprising of Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner and Secretary of Department, recommended petitioner for promotion, being only eligible candidate, but Hon’ble Chief Minister, being Minister-in-Charge of Personnel Department, did not approve the recommendation of D.P.C. on the ground that “ An IAS service officer is posted as Director (Agri) as important projects are handled in the deptt, and at present IAS officer is handling the Deptt. ”. Having perused aforesaid reasoning given by competent authority for turning down the recommendation of D.P.C., this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner that no cogent and convincing reasoning has been given, rather, for no justifiable reason, chances of petitioner for being promoted to the post of Director have been marred. 11. Though, at this stage, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General attempted to argue that till the time aforesaid decision taken by the competent authority is not laid challenge, this Court is estopped from acceding to the prayer made by the petitioner, especially qua quashing of aforesaid decision taken by the competent authority, however, taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in N.P. Dhamania (supra), pressed into service by learned Advocate General, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no need to communicate reasons, if any, by the competent authority for not accepting the recommendations of the D.P.C., but it also came to be ruled in aforesaid judgment that when such decision is challenged, it is always open to authority concerned to produce the necessary records before Court. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of following Paras of afore judgment, which reads as under: “18. It will be clear from the above that the recommendations of the D.P.C. are advisory in nature. Such recommendations are not binding on the appointing authority. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of following Paras of afore judgment, which reads as under: “18. It will be clear from the above that the recommendations of the D.P.C. are advisory in nature. Such recommendations are not binding on the appointing authority. It is open to the appointing authority to differ from the recommendations in public interest. That is beyond doubt. 19. Notwithstanding the fact that it is open to the ACC which alone is the appointing authority and not the Minister concerned, as urged by the respondent to differ from the recommendations of the D.P.C., it must give reasons for so differing to ward off any attack of arbitrariness. Those reasons will have to be recorded in the file. It requires to be stated at this stage that we have perused the file in the instant case. We find no reasons have been recorded for differing from the recommendations of the D.P.C.. That is why the Tribunal also inter alia observes in the impugned judgment as under: "However, the counsel for the respondent felt helpless in the matter and he failed to provide us any inkling of what prevailed with the ACC in dropping the petitioner and four others out of the select panel of 59 officers." 20. If the file had contained reasons something could be said in favour of the appellant. But, that is not the case here. Then the question would be whether the reasons recorded are required to be communicated to the officer concerned. Our answer is in the negative. There is no need to communicate those reasons. When challenged it is always open to the authority concerned to produce the necessary records before the court. 21. Turning to the grant of "deemed promotion" we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal had exceeded in its jurisdiction. We are unable to support the finding merely because the ACC required the UPSC to adopt a more rigorous review of the select list. It would be an exercise in futility to make a reference back and seek further consultation with the UPSC in the matter. On this score, "deemed promotion" cannot be accorded. Still the ACC will have to consider the case of the respondent on merits with reference to the records. It would be an exercise in futility to make a reference back and seek further consultation with the UPSC in the matter. On this score, "deemed promotion" cannot be accorded. Still the ACC will have to consider the case of the respondent on merits with reference to the records. Therefore, we set aside this part of the order declaring the respondent shall be deemed to have been promoted to Senior Administrative Grade Level II of the ITS with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted to the said grade.” 12. True it is that the decision taken by the competent authority, thereby turning down the recommendation of the D.P.C., has not been laid challenge, but it is not in dispute that pursuant to orders passed by this Court, complete record with regard to recommendation made by D.P.C. as well as decision taken by the competent authority came to be produced before this Court, as a result thereof, this Court had an occasion to see the recommendation of the D.P.C. as well as reasons assigned by the competent authority, while differing with the recommendation made by the D.P.C.. Though in these circumstances, petitioner is required to lay challenge to aforesaid decision of competent authority by filing a substantive/fresh writ or amending the writ at hand, but since petitioner is due to retire within a period of two months, coupled with the fact that this Court had an occasion to go through the record and till date, no written communication has been sent to petitioner with regard to decision by the competent authority, this Court does not see any reason to nonsuit the petitioner on aforesaid ground. 13. "Moulding of relief" principle was recognized by the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1709. It was observed therein that though the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding, the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process is also to be noted. It was observed therein that though the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding, the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process is also to be noted. Justice VR Krishna Iyer observed: "If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decrotal remedy. Equity justifies bending the // 16 // rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice--subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling (actors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.” 14. Since factum of not accepting the recommendations of the D.P.C. by competent authority was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the petition at hand and such factum only came to his notice during proceedings of the case, coupled with the fact that it is apparent from the perusal of record that great injustice has been done to the petitioner, this Court can mould the relief to do substantial justice. At this juncture, this Court finds it necessary to take note of Rule 11 of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which reads as under: “11. At this juncture, this Court finds it necessary to take note of Rule 11 of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which reads as under: “11. By promotion from amongst the Additional Directors, Agriculture with one year regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc services, if any, in the grade failing which by promotion from amongst the Additional Directors, Agriculture having 2 years regular service or regular service combined with continuous ad hoc services, if any, as Additional Director, Agriculture and Joint Director Agriculture, which shall also include essential service of six months as Agriculture, Additional Director, failing which secondment from IAS/HAS cadre. 15. Aforesaid Rule clearly provides that the post of Director shall be filed-up 100% by promotion from amongst Additional Directors, Agriculture with one year regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc services, if any, in the grade failing which by promotion from amongst the Additional Directors, Agriculture having two years regular service or regular service combined with continuous ad hoc services, if any, as Additional Director, Agriculture and Joint Director Agriculture, petitioner is fully eligible to be considered in terms of aforesaid Rule. No doubt, aforesaid Rule reserves liberty to Government to appoint an IAS/HAS as Director, but only in that situation where candidate in feeder category, as provided under aforesaid Rule, is not available, however, in the instant case, petitioner being from feeder category was the sole candidate eligible and he was duly recommended by the D.P.C. If it is so, recommendation made by D.P.C. could not have been ignored by the competent authority, that too on the ground that an IAS Officer is required to be posted. An IAS Officer can only be posted as a Director in the event of non-availability of Officer from the Agriculture Department. 16. True it is that since the year 2023, an IAS Officer is working as a Director, but that cannot be a ground to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner, who admittedly had become eligible for promotion to the post of Director on 04.09.2024, whereafter Secretary (Agriculture) i.e. respondent No.1, himself initiated the process for convening the meeting of D.P.C., which ultimately recommended the name of the petitioner. An IAS Officer appointed at one point of time as Director on account of non- availability of Officer from the Department, cannot be permitted to work as Director for an indefinite period, that too when eligible candidate is available in the feeder category. Moreover, appointment of IAS Officer made in the year 2023 was on secondment basis. 17. Otherwise also, reasoning given by competent authority is not tenable in view of Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as expertise of Officer of Agriculture Department, who are otherwise expert in their field and as such, it would be unfair for them to say that such officers are not capable of handling the ongoing projects. At this stage, it would be noteworthy that in past, post of Director, Agriculture, was being manned by the officers of the Department and not by IAS Officers. At this juncture, this Court also deems it necessary to take note of Clauses 16.14 & 16.15 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, which read as under: “16.14 Implementation of the recommendations of the D. P. C. The recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee are advisory in nature and should be duly approved by the appointing authority before being implemented. A clearance from the Vigilance Section of the Office/Department should also be obtained before making actual promotion or confirmation of officer approved by D.P.C. to ensure that, no disciplinary or criminal proceeding are pending against the Officer concerned. 16.15 Procedure to be followed when appointing authority does not agree with the recommendation of D.P.C. The D.P.C. is a recommendatory body and the recommendations made by it are subject to approval by the appointing authority. There may be certain occasions when, for valid reasons, the appointing authority may find it necessary to disagree with the recommendations of the duly constituted D.P.C. In cases where the recommendations of the D.P.C./Commission are not acceptable to the appointing authority, a second reference with cogent reasons shall be made to the D.P.C./Commission. If after re- consideration a particular Department still feels that the recommendations made by the D.P.C./Commission should not be accepted, the Administrative Department with the approval of the Minister-in-Charge shall prepare a self-contained summary of the case and after obtaining advice of the Department of Personnel, place the matter before the Cabinet Sub-Committee convened, for the said purpose.” 18. If after re- consideration a particular Department still feels that the recommendations made by the D.P.C./Commission should not be accepted, the Administrative Department with the approval of the Minister-in-Charge shall prepare a self-contained summary of the case and after obtaining advice of the Department of Personnel, place the matter before the Cabinet Sub-Committee convened, for the said purpose.” 18. As per Clause 16.14, recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee are advisory in nature and should be duly approved by the appointing authority before being implemented, but in case appointing authority does not agree with the recommendations of the D.P.C., procedure has been provided in Clause 16.15. As per aforesaid instructions, D.P.C. is a recommendatory body and the recommendations made by it are subject to approval by the appointing authority. In case appointing authority disagrees with the recommendations of duly constituted D.P.C., it is under obligation to assign valid reasons. In cases where recommendation of D.P.C. are not accepted by the appointing authority, a second reference with cogent reasons shall be made to the D.P.C./Commission. If after re- consideration, a particular Department still feels that the recommendations made by the D.P.C./Commission should not be accepted, the Administrative Department with the approval of the Minister-in-Charge shall prepare a self-contained summary of the case and after obtaining advice of the Department of Personnel, place the matter before the Cabinet Sub-Committee convened, for the said purpose. However, in the instant case, aforesaid procedure prescribed in Handbook on Personnel Matters has not been followed. 19. In the instant case, there is nothing on record that the petitioner was not found suitable or eligible for promotion to the post of Director, rather, mere observation of competent authority is that since an IAS officer is manning the post in question and handling projects of the Department, therefore, turned down the recommendations of DPC. Another plea taken by the respondents to deny promotion to the petitioner is that he (petitioner) would remain Director for a couple of months, as such, it would not be in the interests of the Department and ongoing projects. However, this court finds that neither the competent authority adopted the procedure as laid down in the Handbook on Personnel Matters, in the case of its differing with the recommendations of the DPC nor gave any justified reasoning for denying promotion to the petitioner. However, this court finds that neither the competent authority adopted the procedure as laid down in the Handbook on Personnel Matters, in the case of its differing with the recommendations of the DPC nor gave any justified reasoning for denying promotion to the petitioner. Once, the petitioner is fully eligible /suitable for promotion to the post of Director, coupled with the fact that in the past, said post has been manned by promotees, it cannot be assumed that either the petitioner is incompetent to handle the ongoing projects of the Department or that promoting the petitioner would hamper working of the Department, as such, this Court is of the view that the competent authority should reconsider the matter and if otherwise found suitable/eligible, should promote/appoint the petitioner to the post in question. 20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and decision dated 17.04.2025 taken by the competent authority, as taken note hereinabove, is quashed and set-aside with further direction to respondents to reconsider the recommendations of D.P.C. and thereafter appropriate orders with regard to promotion of the petitioner be passed. Since petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2025, this Court hopes and trusts that necessary action in terms of directions issued by this Court shall be taken expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 15 days from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.