The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of effective and meaningful consideration for promotion and the capacity of a statutory authority to act only in terms of the rules prescribed and operative.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in the instant appeals, the same have been heard analogously. All these appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 26th September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 12002 (W) of 2013 deciding the issues as to whether the vacancies of the year 2010 existing in the posts of Executive in E7 grade in different disciplines under Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) can be filled up by the promotion policy of 2011 or as to whether the same ought to have been filled up in terms of the policy prevalent in the year 2010 and as to whether the rules relating to promotion can be altered midway.

2. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has set aside and quashed the promotion policy dated 3/5th May, 2011 and has prohibited CIL from giving effect or further effect to the said promotion policy and has also directed CIL to fill up the vacancies arising in the year 2010 on the basis of the promotional policy governing the field when the vacancies arose.

3. At the inception it needs to be stated that we have not been able to ascertain the reasons for which the entire promotion policy dated 3/5th May, 2011 has been set aside though the issue for consideration was as to whether the promotion of the writ petitioners from E-6 to E-7 grade would be guided by the said promotion policy. A perusal of the judgment impugned also does not reveal that any argument was advanced to the effect that there was any infirmity in the said promotion policy. In the said conspectus, we are of the opinion that the directions to set aside the said promotion policy and to prohibit CIL from giving effect or further effect to the said promotion policy are not sustainable in law and the said directions are accordingly set aside.

4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in AST 83 of 2016 submits that pursuant to the direction of the Board of Directors of CIL in its 257th meeting held on 31st May and 1st June, 2010 at Kolkata, new guidelines were formulated for promotion of Executives from E-6 to E-7 grade. The eligibility and competence of the appellants was duly ascertained by the employer on the rudiments of the new promotion policy and after the appellants emerged to be successful in the said promotional process, they were awarded promotion by the memorandum dated 2nd April, 2013. Though in the writ petitions the said memorandum dated 2nd April, 2013 was under challenge, the appellants who were promoted and whose names featured in the said memorandum were not impleaded in the writ petition and orders were obtained in their absence and against them and on the said ground itself the impugned judgment needs to be set aside.

5. He further argues that formulation of a promotion policy is the prerogative of the employer and any such decision towards formulation and implementation of a promotion policy is a policy decision which should not be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

6. Drawing the attention of this Court to a note pertaining to promotion of Executives who have completed nine years of service in E-6 grade, he argues that the writ petitioners were members of Coal Mines Officers’ Association of India (hereinafter referred to as CMOAI) and the said Association approached the employer with the demand to consider the claim for promotion through the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC) for promotion of Executives from E-6 to E-7 grade on the basis of the pre-revised promotion policy as formulated on 22nd December, 1992 so that all eligible Executives in E-6 grade, who have completed nine years as on 30th September, 2010 are promoted to E-7 grade. Such demand of the writ petitioners was acceded to by CIL and as such the said writ petitioners, who were purportedly stagnated for nine years, cannot turn back and claim that the vacancies pertain