Promotion under the IRCTC policy requires absence of disciplinary penalties; denial of promotion is a natural consequence, not a penalty itself.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed by a person seeking promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, challenging Exts. P14, P16, P19, P22 and P24. He further seeks a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager (Tourism) in accordance with Ext. P1 Promotion Policy against one of the vacancies that existed as on 09.03.2012 and thereafter to promote him as General Manager with effect from 09.03.2015. He also seeks consequential benefits, including monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Manager on a regular basis under the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (for short, IRCTC), the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager (Tourism) with effect from 09.03.2009.

3. It is contended that, as per the Promotion Policy produced as Ext.P1, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Tourism) in the Tourism Department of the 1^st respondent. The post of Manager (Tourism) is the feeder category for promotion to Deputy General Manager, which is a post in the middle management level (Group E4), from the junior management level (Group E2/E3). Promotions are to be affected on the basis of performance and confidential reports upon completion of three years of regular service. However, there is an exemption for outstanding candidates possessing the requisite qualifications and consistently high standards of performance.

4. The petitioner contends that he holds a Master’s Degree in Business Management (Administration) and a Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology. Being an outstanding and consistent performer, he claims that he is entitled to promotion as Deputy General Manager even prior to the completion of three years in the feeder category post. The Performance Management System records for the year 2012 were finalised only in January 2015. Even then, the column relating to integrity was left unfilled. Subsequently, the entry was made as “Normal.” However, his work performance was recorded as “Very Good.” In such circumstances, the petitioner submits that he ought to have been promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Tourism) against one of the three vacancies that then existed in the South Zone, as he was the only Manager in the Tourism Department who was qualified to be promoted to the said post. At the relevant time, there were only two Managers in the Tourism Department of the 1^st respondent eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Tourism).

5. In 2012, the 1^st respondent issued a communication (Ext.P7) dated 23.03.2012, identifying candidates for promotion to the next grade. The communication requested the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the preceding three years for scrutiny by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The petitioner’s name was duly included in this list under the South Zone. According to the petitioner, under the extant promotion policy (Ext.P1), an incumbent is only disqualified for promotion if their APARs fall below the requisite standards. As the petitioner met these standards, he was entitled to promotion to one of the then-existing vacancies for the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM).

6. The petitioner alleges that the 2^nd respondent issued a ch