JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - Considering that this Writ Petition is pending since the year 2016 where pleadings are also complete, the same is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The issue involves promotion of the petitioner from Grade- D to Grade- E in the Engineering Segment under the Oil India Limited (herein after OIL) - the respondent no. 1.

3. The challenge pertains to non-consideration of the case of the petitioner to give him the benefit of promotion at the appropriate time and erroneous consideration of giving such benefits to the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

4. At the outset, this Court has noted that vide order dated 04.09.2019, service upon the respondent nos. 4 & 5 have been treated to be complete. However neither of the said respondents have chosen to contest this Writ Petition.

5. Before coming to the issue of this Writ Petition, it would be beneficial to state the facts of the case in brief.

6. The Petitioner who was appointed in the OIL in the year 1999 and was promoted from time to time and vide order dated 01.01.2010, he was promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) which is a Grade- D post. The Promotion Policy prescribes for an assured promotion after completion of a particular number of years in the said grade and as per the said policy promotions from Grade- D to Grade- E were to be given after 04/05 years. 60 % of the incumbents in the feeder grade would be promoted after 4(four) years and the rest 40 % in the subsequent year depending upon their position in the select list which has to be prepared in accordance with the criteria laid down in the said Policy.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that in the selection so held, the marks allotted to the respondent nos. 4 & 5 included 1 (one) mark each which the said respondents were not legally entitled to. As a result thereof, while the petitioner was placed at rank- 5 with 82.37 marks, the respondent no. 4 was placed at rank- 3 with 83.31 marks and the respondent no. 5 was placed against rank-4 with 83.30 marks. Due to such erroneous marking, both the private respondents stole a march over the petitioner and were given the benefit of promotion in the same year treating them to be within the 60 %and the petitioner was promoted to the Grade-E rank only in the subsequent year. Consequently, great prejudice both in terms of seniority and other service benefits have been suffered by the petitioner.

8. I have heard Shri U.K. Nair, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri A. Boro, learned counsel. The respondent-Company is represented by Shri S.N. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel. As observed above, the respondent Company has filed the affidavit-in-opposition followed by a rejoinder by the petitioner.

9. Shri Nair, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Promotion Policy of 2012. By making specific reference to the guidelines which include the criteria and weightages for promotion, the Senior Counsel submits that for promotion from the rank of Grade- D to Grade -E the following marks are allotted:-

CRITERIA AND WEIGHTAGES FOR PROMOTION

10. As regards, the break up in weightages for various criteria, the following has been laid down:-

BREAK-DOWN IN WEIGHTAGES FOR VARIOUS CRITERIA