JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether promotion has been rightly denied and what is the conceptual difference between the principles of merit-cum-seniority vis-a-vis seniority-cum-merit has been the subject matter of controversy in large number of cases. It is not unusual that a person entering into a particular service has an expectation that he will go higher in the hierarchy and denial thereof results invariably in litigation. The case at hand is no exception.

3. As the threshold of the litigations history, appellant was working as an Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the employer) . A promotional policy was formulated on 14.2.1990 and is called "Promotion Policy for Officers". It was indicated in clause 3.1 that provisions of this policy are applicable to promotion of officers up to and including the cadre of General Manager. Appellant was not found suitable for promotion of the relevant periods i.e. 1991-92 and 1992-93. As he was not granted promotion, he filed a representation to the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the employer-company indicating that many of his juniors in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager had been given promotion which was denied to him. When the representation was rejected for the period 1991-92, and same was the fate for 1992-93, the appellant filed writ petition before the Orissa High Court. The basic stand in the writ petition was that the appellant had been wrongly denied promotion. During course of hearing of the writ petition, it was contended that the stipulations in clause in para 7.1 of the policy are in variance with those in para 1.2. It was highlighted that promotion was to be granted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As 42 marks out of 100 were earmarked for seniority, the principle of seniority-cum-merit was given a go-by and undue stress was placed on merit. Strong reliance was placed in the judgment of learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Umesh Chand Paudya vs. The New India Assurance Co. and Ors. and Upendra Kumar Pradhan vs. The New India Assurance Co. and Ors. delivered on 29.5.1997 consisting identical provision in the policy of the New India Assurance Company. the employer resisted the claim on the ground that on a reading of the promotional policy and object underlying the same, it is clear that there has been no infraction. It was submitted that basis for promotion was not seniority alone but seniority-cum-merit and other relevant aspects, which are clearly linked and connected with the process of selection for promotion. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief and there was no illegality in the decision-making process of the employer in denying promotion.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that para 1.2 makes it clear that the basis for promotion is seniority-cum-merit alone and by allotting 42 marks out of 100, such policy has been overlooked by attaching undue importance to so-called merit. A decision of this Court in B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. (1998 (6) SCC 720) was referred to in order to substantiate the plea.

5. In response, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that on a reading of the whole policy it is clear that seniority-cum-merit is not the only criteria for granting promotion. Para 7.2 itself makes it clear that as one goes higher in the hierarchy of posts seniority has lesser importance, and merit has overriding importance. A reference was made to Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes Employees Association (Regd.), through its General Secretary, K.S. Badlia and Ors. vs. Union of India, through its Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Economic Affairs), Banking Division and Ors. (1990 (Supp.) SCC 350) to contend that where seniority-cum-merit and al other relevant aspects have been duly taken note of, there is no sco