submit that the requisite service in the feeder cadre for promotion of the Deputy Director to the post of Director is prescribed as 10 years and in support of his contention, he referred to Schedule 4 formulated under Rule 14 & 15 of the Service Rules of 2013. He also contended that according to his instruction, petitioner secured 18 marks while assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the other candidates who had under the zone of consideration for promotion by the DPC have been awarded less marks than that of petitioner. He would submit that even if the requirement in the service rules for promotion ie., the candidate to be eligible for promotion has secured ‘very good’ grading in all the five years to obtain minimum 15 marks but for the purpose of promotion under merit-cum-seniority basis inter se merit is also to be considered by the DPC and the said procedure adopted is also to be mentioned in the proceedings. In the proceedings of DPC, there is no such mention but for that all the persons have secured ‘very good’ grading, the senior most person under the zone of consideration for promotion has been recommended for promotion and accordingly Annexure P-1 order of promotion has been issued by the State Government. The procedure adopted by the DPC is in contravention of provisions of Service Rules of 2013 and also CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. He contended that for assessing comparative merit, the DPC is under obligation to evaluate qualitative differences, overall performance indicators, consistency of service, noteworthy achievements etc. to assess merit of the officer/ employee in the zone of consideration of promotion, which was not done by the DPC and therefore the procedure adopted for promotion by the DPC, is not sustainable and it is to be quashed and consequently the order of
