PANAJI
“The Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned Seniority List notified by the respondents dated April 30, 2015 is quashed and set aside, with all legal consequences. The respondent No.1 (Chief Secretary) is directed to re-examine and prepare a fresh Seniority List in the light of the observations made herein above and in accordance with law,” the court said in its order. “The impugned seniority list prepared in April, 2015 is contrary to the directions issued by the Chief Minister which clearly directed that such list be prepared by the Chief Secretary. Though the Principal Secretary (and current Chief Secretary) who has prepared the list, apparently was officiating for some period, it is not disputed that when the impugned list was finalized and when the process was in progress, there was a full time Chief Secretary in place,” the Court order reads “We find that the respondent Principal Secretary has exceeded his powers while carrying out such exercise as the final seniority list prepared on 14.06.2014 which was duly approved by the Government has been overruled, thereby unsettling the Government decisions. Apart from that, we find that all the contentions raised by the petitioner have not at all been examined by the respondent Principal Secretary (current Chief Secretary),” the court said adding that on “this ground alone the impugned seniority list stands vitiated.” The court ruled that it is a “settled seniority position should not be unsettled unless for very specific and compelling reasons”. The court also found that the committee reviewing the seniority list didn t review all the annual confidential reports (ACRs) of the officials. “On perusal of the minutes it appears therefrom that only some ACRs of the respective Officers were taken into consideration,” the court ruled even pointing to the fact that some officials were given an “outstanding” remark. “Confidential Reports of the concerned Officers, we find that in contravention of Cause 34 of the said guidelines, which clearly provides that the Government Servants should not be graded Outstanding unless exceptional qualities and performance have been noticed in them and that the ground for granting such grading should be clearly reflected therein, in most of the assessments of the ACRs of the Officers, the respondents No.2 (Sandip Jacques) and 3 (Arun Desai) have been graded “Outstanding” without stating any ground therein,” the court ruled. The court also found that confidential reports which were rejected by the Government have been relied upon to prepare the impugned seniority list. “This itself discloses that the impugned seniority list cannot be accepted. Even acceptance by the Government of the report of the then principal secretary does not at all disclose any reason nor considers the objections raised by the petitioner,” the order reads.
