1. Dispute regarding promotions based on a trade test conducted under the principle of merit-cum-seniority. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 789
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
ABDUL JABBAR – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM BIHARI PANDY & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8018-8019 of 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 8020-8021 of 2013
Decided On : 12-07-2018
Important Points
The principle of Merit-cum-Seniority for promotions was upheld by the court.
Subject
Employment - Promotions and Seniority
Headnote
Promotions - Merit-cum-Seniority - The court upheld the promotions based on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority, dismissing the appeal against the promotions made in 1981.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged promotions made in 1981 based on a trade test conducted by the respondent/Institution, which was conducted for the purpose of promotion based on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the promotions based on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority and the changes sought to be made to Seniority-cum-Merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority for promotions, as it was the basis for promotions and had been restored after an attempt to change it to Seniority-cum-Merit.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of with no orders as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of promotions based on the application of merit-cum-seniority versus seniority-cum-merit principles. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court observed the restoration of the merit-cum-seniority principle and found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court are upheld in the absence of grounds for interference. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals dismissed and pending applications disposed of without orders as to costs. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. What was the basis for the promotions in this matter?
Promotions were based on a trade test conducted under the principle of merit-cum-seniority, with the merit list prepared based on test performance. (Para 2 )
7. How did the court view the temporary change in promotion principles?
The court noted that although the principle was changed to seniority-cum-merit, the principle of merit-cum-seniority was later restored. (Para 3 )
8. When will the court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts?
The court will not interfere with concurrent findings rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court if no grounds for interference are found. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press I.A. No.108566/2017. The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the promotions effected in the year 1981 based on the trade test conducted by the respondent/Institution. The Trade Test was conducted for the purpose of promotion based on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority. Accordingly, the promotions had been always made based on the merit list prepared on the basis of test performance.
3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that though in 1986 the principle was sought to be changed to Seniority-cum-Merit, later the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority was restored.
4. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court. The appeals are hence dismissed.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
6. There shall be no orders as to costs.
