Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (MSETCL), challenged an internal advertisement dated 27-2-2009 for filling vacancies in the cadres of Executive Engineer (Transmission), Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission), Executive Engineer (Civil), and Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil). Clause 5 of the advertisement stated that selection would be on the basis of a written test and personal interview, where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs), and performance in the personal interview would be considered. The petitioners argued that the respondents should have used the ACRs for shortlisting candidates before the written test and interview, and that the failure to do so rendered the selection process arbitrary. The respondents, including the company and intervenors who were selected candidates, contended that the advertisement clearly specified the selection criteria and that the process was followed as per the terms. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the issue was very short. It noted that the advertisement itself did not mandate the use of ACRs for shortlisting; rather, it stated that ACRs would be considered along with other factors. The court found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the advertisement and there was no illegality or arbitrariness. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Selection Criteria - Internal Advertisement - Clause 5 of advertisement dated 27-2-2009 stipulated selection on basis of written test and personal interview, with academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in personal interview to be considered - Petitioners challenged the selection process contending that ACRs should have been used for shortlisting - Court held that the advertisement clearly specified the selection criteria and there was no requirement to use ACRs for shortlisting; the process was valid and transparent (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection criteria for internal promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer, which included written test and personal interview but not performance appraisal (ACRs) for shortlisting, was valid and whether the petitioners had a right to have their ACRs considered for shortlisting.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Selection criteria
- internal notification
- written test
- personal interview
- performance appraisal
- ACRs
- shortlisting
- promotion
- executive engineer
- deputy executive engineer
- transmission
- civil
- Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd.
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 12
Writ Petition No. 5712 of 2010
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Sunil P. Deshmukh
S.B. Talekar, S.V. Adwant, A.B. Kadethankar
Rangnath s/o. Prabhu Chavan, Kishor s/o. Taterao Sonawane, Sanjay s/o. Parshuram Kamble
The Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., The Executive Director (Human Resources), The Chief General Manager (Human Resources), Atul s/o. Chandrakant Manurkar, Vikas s/o. Murlidharrao Dalal, Prakash s/o. Trimbak Deshpande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the selection process for internal promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer in MSETCL.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the selection process and direct the respondents to consider performance appraisal (ACRs) for shortlisting candidates.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the selection criteria in the advertisement were not followed as ACRs were not used for shortlisting, making the process arbitrary.
Issues
Whether the selection criteria for internal promotion, as per the advertisement dated 27-2-2009, required the use of performance appraisal (ACRs) for shortlisting candidates before the written test and interview.
Whether the selection process conducted by the respondents was arbitrary and illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the advertisement stipulated that academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs), and performance in personal interview would be considered, and thus ACRs should have been used for shortlisting.
Respondents contended that the advertisement clearly stated that selection would be on the basis of written test and personal interview, and ACRs were only one of the factors to be considered, not for shortlisting.
Ratio Decidendi
The selection criteria as per the advertisement were clear and did not mandate the use of ACRs for shortlisting. The process was conducted in accordance with the advertisement and was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
A very short issue is involved.
Advertisement published on 27-2-2009, to fill in 20 vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Transmission), 62 vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission), 6 vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil), and 15 vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), in clause 5 laid down selection criteria.
The said clause stipulates that selection against internal notification shall be on the basis of written test and personal interview, where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in personal interview shall be considered.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2010 challenging the advertisement dated 27-2-2009. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent on 2nd August 2012.
