JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondents.

2. This Petition is filed by Petitioners challenging promotion order dated 20th January 2017 issued by Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) effecting promotions to E-2 level (Executive-2) posts. Petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the action of SPMCIL in effecting promotions to the E-2 level post by applying the criteria of merit. They seek grant of promotions to E-2 level posts on the basis of date of entry into S-2 level post. The short issue that therefore arises for our consideration in present case is about the method of effecting promotions to E-2 level postmerit or seniority.

3. Petitioners belong to Control cadre and Technical cadre of the erstwhile Currency Note Press and India Security Press at Nashik. Before formation of SPMCIL, there were 9 units of the Government of India engaged printing of security documents, minting of coins, etc viz. (1) Currency Note Press-Nashik, (2) Bank Note Press-Dewas, (3) India Security Press-Nasik, (4) Security Printing Press-Hyderabad, (5) Security Paper Mill-Hoshangabad, (6) India Govt. Mint-Calcutta, (7) India Govt. Mint-Mumbai, (8) India Govt. Mint- Hyderabad and (9) India Govt. Mint-Noida.

4. The Government of India merged the said 9 Units by corporatizing them and formed SPMCIL in the year 2006. Initially all the employees working in the said 9 Units were sent on deemed deputation pending settlement of their terms and conditions. A Tripartite Agreement/Memorandum of Settlement was effected between SPMCIL and representative Unions on 15 September 2008. This is how the employees and officers of the 9 units came to be absorbed in the Respondent-Corporation with effect from 1st November 2018.

5. In order to provide relief to Supervisors of the Respondent-Corporation holding substantive posts of S1 and S2, who had not received promotions and as per the understanding with the recognized Unions, a policy (Terms of Understanding) was executed between the Respondent Corporation and representatives of the recognized Unions. The same was approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent-Corporation on 8 December 2015. Under those Terms of Understanding, a one time measure was adopted under which S-1 and S-2 level staff who had completed 15 and 20 years of service were made eligible for promotion to E-1 and E-2 level posts respectively in the Control and Technical cadre.

6. Accordingly, a Circular was issued by Respondent-Corporation on 15 May 2015 inviting applications from employees holding S1 and S-2 level posts for filling up 42 posts of E-1 and E-2 level. The Supervisors with 15 years’ experience were to be considered for E-1 level post whereas Supervisors with 20 years’ experience were to be considered for E-2 level posts. The Circular directed that interviews would be conducted to assess suitability of each employee in technical area. 42 posts were identified to be filled up with the caveat that the same were likely to be increased. Accordingly, several eligible employees submitted their applications in pursuance of the Circular. Petitioners also participated in selection for E-2 level posts. The Respondent Corporation subjected the eligible candidates to interview. Merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the interview and accordingly promotion orders were effected. Petitioners are aggrieved by the exercise of comparative assessment undertaken by Respondents by conducting interviews. According to Petitioners, interview ought to have been held only for determining suitability and not for making comparative assessment. Petitioners are not selected for promotion on the basis of their performance in the interview and have accordingly filed present Petition challenging the promotion order dated 20th January 2017.

7. Appearing for Petitioners Mr. Walia the le