Member of DPC favoured a candidate in promotion and keeping him ahead to me. The DPC adopted grading method in preparing seniority list. That grading method also helps me to be at the second position in the seniority list. But the DPC deliberately keep me at the fifth position in the seniority list. When the tentative seniority list was published by the departmental promotion committee we filed objection against it. Our objections were considered by the DPC but once again manipulated the grading system and kept me at the fourth position in the final seniority list. The grading system does not give an unfettered right to the DPC to prepare seniority list. I specifically filed an objection against the final seniority list and also raised question against the favour of the member of DPC to the candidate who stood at the second position.
When I raised that objection the final seniority list was once again scrutinized by the DPC. The minutes of the DPC proceedings infer that when the name of XX was put for consideration the said member of DPC not sit. It is an attempt to show that seniority list has been prepared honestly. But after scrutinization of final seniority list my position came down and I have been kept at the fifth position. The promotion order has been passed on the very next day of publication of seniority list.
Asked from: Uttarakhand
When you raised an objection regarding the bias of one member of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), that member abstained from the meeting when the candidate in question was considered. This shows that the member had a personal or vested interest in that candidate’s promotion. Your objection is valid.
If a DPC member has a personal interest in a candidate’s promotion, the entire promotion process becomes invalid. Additionally, the manipulation of the grading system to give extra weight to that candidate further proves that the DPC did not act impartially.
Every administrative and quasi-judicial action must be fair and free from bias. In matters of bias, it is not necessary to prove that the member is actually biased. If the member has a personal interest, there is a likelihood that he will not act fairly. This likelihood is enough to establish bias.
In the case of A.K. Kraipak and Others vs Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court held that all administrative and quasi-judicial decisions must follow the principles of fairness and natural justice.
One important rule of natural justice is that no one should be a judge in their own case. Even though the member was absent during the sitting when the candidate’s name was considered, he may still have influenced the other members. This possibility cannot be ignored.
Therefore, the entire DPC proceedings and the resulting promotion order should be cancelled. You should file a writ petition in the High Court to quash the promotion order and request that the DPC process be conducted afresh. The minutes of DPC also proves that one member of DPC favoured a candidate in promotion.
Related: Right to promotion when departmental proceedings are pending