2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Sagheer Ahmad for Respondent In March, 1995 examination for the posts of Income Tax Inspector, against reserved quota for employees was held. The petitioner who is working as U.D.C. in the said department also appeared alongwith others and secured 158 marks out of 300 whereas respondents Nos.4 and 5 had respectively obtained 153 and 158 marks.

2. Instead of promoting the petitioner, 10 candidates including respondents Nos.4 and 5 were selected by respondent No.3 against the aforesaid posts, allegedly in violations of Service Rules.

3. Petitioner's representation against the said selections and appointment was also not attended to by respondents Nos.1 and

2. He, therefore, filed this Constitutional petition wherein he has assailed the aforesaid order of promotion allegedly passed on 3-11-1995 copy whereof is not produced. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order is illegal, void and without lawful authority. Prayer in the writ petition is that respondents Nos.1 to 3 be directed to promote the petitioner as Income Tax Inspector w.e.f. 3-4-1995.

4. The petition is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, on the grounds that departmental examination was conducted for determining the eligibility of the candidates for promotion and clearing the said exam., did not confer upon the petitioner any right of promotion. It was further submitted that the promotion order was rightly issued in consonance with the provisions of law of seniority-cum-fitness basis.

5. Arguments hard, writ petition and annexures appended therewith perused.

6. A claim to promotion by the civil servant is not a vested right and cannot be enforced by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction. The giving or refusal of promotion is a matter which falls within the exclusive discretionary domain of the Executive Authorities concerned in the matter. Equality guaranteed under the Constitution cannot take away the right of the authority to pick and choose proper persons for employment or promotion in Government Service. It is for the Promoting Authority to determine such suitability after assessment of all relevant considerations such as seniority, competence, rectitude and antecedent official records. The basis of all promotions is merit or suitability and so far as suitability for promotion to a particular post is concerned, the sole judge is the competent authority; its opinion cannot be substituted by the Court.

7. It is not denied by the contesting respondents that after qualifying in the examination the petitioner had become eligible for promotion and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not considered by the respondents for promotion.

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that while considering his case for promotion, discretion was not properly exercised by the Promoting Authority.

9. Question of fitness or suitability for promotion is a matter of subjective evaluation on the basis of objective criteria and sole judge for said evaluation is the concerned competent authority whose opinion cannot be substituted by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

10. Writ petition dismissed. S.A.K./H-132/L Petition dismissed.