Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 380
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Mintu Borkataky S/o Tarun Chandra Borkataky - Appellant
VERSUS
Oil India Limited And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/4724/2022
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. P D NAIR, MR G ALAM,MR. A CHETRY,MR. H ROHMAN
For the Respondent: SC, OIL, MR. S C KEYAL (R-7 TO 10),MR. K BAISHYA (R-7 TO 10),MR. A HALIM (R-7 TO 10)
Promotion policies must be applied as per their terms, and courts will not interfere without clear evidence of constitutional violations.
Headnote:
(A) Promotion Policy of 2016 - The petitioner, an employee of Oil India Limited, challenged the effective date of his promotion from Grade-C to Grade-D, claiming it should have been from 01.01.2021 instead of 01.01.2022 due to erroneous application of the Promotion Policy. The policy stipulates that 70% of eligible executives are promoted based on merit from 01.01.2021, while 30% are promoted from the following year. The petitioner argued he was wrongly displaced by SC/ST candidates due to the concession rules. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Fundamental Rights - The court emphasized that unless a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is demonstrated, it would not interfere with the promotion decisions made by the authorities. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was promoted to Grade-D effective 01.01.2022, after being displaced by SC/ST candidates despite having the requisite merit for promotion from 01.01.2021. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the promotion date as per the existing policy. (Paras 10-11)
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the Promotion Policy and the alleged violation of the petitioner’s rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the promotion policy was correctly applied and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of his constitutional rights.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Ms. N. Kakati, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 10.
2. The writ petitioner herein is an employee of the Oil India Limited. Presently he is working in a Grade-D category post and is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of April, 2025. Earlier the petitioner was promoted from Grade-C to Grade-D with effect from 01.01.2022 by following the Promotion Policy of 2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that his promotion from Grade-C to Grade-D ought to have been given effect from 01.01.2021 instead of 01.01.2022. Due to erroneous application of the Promotion Policy of 2016, the petitioner has been denied of the benefit of promotion to Grade-D for a period of one year. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The Oil India Limited follows a promotion policy based on performance management system and selectivity ratio of 70 : 30. As per the Promotion Policy of 2016, 70% of the executives eligible for promotion in the relevant year were to be promoted on merit basis by giving effect to their promotion from 01.01.2021 whereas, the remaining 30% would be promoted by giving effect to their promotions with effect from 01.01.2022. The executives in Grade-C who have completed 5 years of service would be eligible for promotion to Grade-D. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that although as per the performance appraisal, he had the requisite merit position to be promoted to Grade-D with effect from 01.01.2021 as a part of the executives coming within the 70% category, yet, due to erroneous interpretation of the concession rules applicable to SCs and STs for filling up promotional posts, he had been wrongly displaced by SC/ST candidates i.e. the private respondents herein as a result of which, the effect of the promotion given to the writ petitioner got delayed by a year.
4. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the subsequent promotion policy of the year 2021, the respondents have made the necessary correction and clarified that the concession given to SC and ST candidates would be in addition to the selectivity ratio. Had the said criteria been applied in case of the writ petitioner under the Policy of 2016, then he would have stolen a march ahead of the SC/ST candidates and in that event, his promotion could have been reckoned with effect from 01.01.2021. Mr. Nair has further submitted that the petitioner had raised his grievance before the authorities but the same has been rejected at different layers as a result of which, the writ petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
5. Opposing the arguments made by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner’s promotion was governed by the Promotion Policy of 2016 which is not under challenge. There is nothing on record to show that the said promotion policy has been erroneously applied in his case. Under such circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner has also failed to challenge the successive orders passed on 18.05.2021 and 11.11.2021 whereby, his representations were rejected by the authorities by furnishing proper reasons, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in this case.
6. I have considered the arguments made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record.
7. As has been noted herein above, the writ petitioner has already got his promotion to Grade-D. Therefore, if he succeeds in the writ petition, the only relief that the writ petitioner would be entitled to, would be in the form of pecuniary benefit. Be that as it may, the effective part of the concession to be given to candidates belongi
