The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the merit-cum-seniority criterion for promotion to senior management posts, where merit predominates over seniority.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner has sought for a mandatory order to the Respondent No. 1 (hereafter called as `the CCI ) that he ought to be promoted as Joint Senior manager (Electrical) from 1. 7. 1990 he; also seeks quashing of an order transferring him to Charkhi Dadri Unit, on 15. 6. 1992.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner joined the services of CCI as a Senior Electrical engineer on 24. 9. 1994. He was promoted as Deputy Manager (Electrical) on 28. 1. 1983 and subsequently as Manger (Electrical) on 24. 10. 1986. The promotion from the post of Manger (Electrical) is to the post of Joint Senior Manager (Electrical ). Pursuant to a selection process held in 1990, the names of several candidates, including the petitioner, were considered; they were also interviewed. The petitioner was not promoted. Later in another selection process held by the DPC in November, 1991 the Petitioner s name was considered once again. However, he was overlooked for promotion. The Petitioner alleges that he had an outstanding record and received several commendations; his super- session is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary. He claims that the promotion of respondents No. 3 to 6 overlooking his legitimate claims is contrary to the rules.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11/15. 6. 1992 by which he was posted to Charkhi Dadri Unit of CCI. Earlier, on 27. 3. 1992 he had been posted to the Tandur Unit; by the Order dated 11/15. 6. 1992 that order was rescinded and he was asked to report at Charkhi Dadri.

( 4 ) IT is claimed that the transfer to Tandur was a direct consequence of the wrath incurred by the Petitioner at the hands of the second Respondent who at that time was the Managing Director of CCI. It is alleged that the purchase and procurement in respect of DG sets had been actively pursued and dictated by said respondent No. 2 who had pressurized the Chief Manager (Electrical) to fall in line with his whims. It is alleged that the procurement process was irregular and that the only expert in the field was one Shri S. M. Sharma, Senior Manger who had objected to the procedure but who had also lost favor with the second respondent. The Petitioner claims that as an electrical expert he had prepared a note in respect of rejection of the bid by BHEL, which he did not support. Consequently, the axe fell on him and he was transferred by the second impugned order. It is alleged that the transfer order is a consequence of the mala fides by the second Respondent who manipulated the same and ensured that the petitioner was posted away from headquarters.

( 5 ) THE second Respondent has not filed any affidavit even though notice was served upon him. The CCI in its counter affidavit has refuted the allegations in respect of illegality in promotion, issuance in transfer orders as also the averments as to mala fides. It claims that the criterion for promotion of executive management cadres up to level E4 to the senior management cadre that (level E5 as in the present case) is merit-cum-seniority. The CCI has relied upon Para 3 of the guidelines and principles applicable to promotion which prescribes that promotion from one group/cadre to another group/cadre will be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, assessed through a selection process that would include test and/or interview designed to determine the employees? aptitude for effectiveness in the higher group/cadre.

( 6 ) IT is averred that as on 30. 6. 1990 the Petitioner was within the zone of consideration; his name was one among the 38 executives who were considered, and interviewed. The Petitioner participated in the interview and on the basis of performance, qualifications, experience and other records 9 executive including third and fourth Respondents were found fit for promotion to E5. In a subsequent process by which the DPC met on 13/14. 11. 1991 the suitability of executives falling within the zone of consideration, was taken into account. This DPC found 10 persons including R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document