Honble RAFIQ, J.–The Central Insurance Employees Association (for short ``the Association) has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 25.05.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the order Exhibits 2 and 3 (both dated 1.08.1988) by which the respondents No. 4 to 6 were promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (in short ``the AAO) in Delhi Tariff Region of United India Insurance Company on the premise that these promotions were against the policy framed by the General Insurance Corporation of India (in short GIC) for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate staff.

(2). We have heard Shri N.M. Lodha learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M.S. Singhvi learned counsel who represents the respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondents No. 4 to 6 whose promotions have been assailed in these proceedings have chosen not to appear in spite of service of notices on them.

(3). Apart from merits of the case, we have heard arguments of both the learned counsels on the question of maintainability of petition filed by the Association precisely on the question whether an employees association can in writ proceedings challenge promotion granted to certain employees even if they are not its members and have come on transfer from another region. Number of judgments delivered by the Honble Supreme Court and of this Court have been cited from both sides regarding maintainability of the writ petition by an employees association. We need not dwell upon this issue in detail because we propose to decide this appeal on merits. While we have no doubt about the locus standi of an employees association to file writ petition on behalf of its member-employees for redressal of their grievance in appropriate cases, we have serious doubt about the maintainability of writ petition at the instance of an employees association questioning promotion granted to certain employees simply because they are not its members. Grant of promotion to some and refusal there of to other is an issue which concerns the employees concerned and if the affected employee chooses not to challenge not grant of promotion to him, it would mean that he has no grievance and in such a situation why an employees association should be permitted to challenge the same by initiating legal proceedings on his behalf.

(4). The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the promotion granted to the respondents No. 4 to 6 by two different orders (both dated 1.08.1988). The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that GIC has framed a policy of promotion for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 1986 which applied to all its subsidiary insurance companies. According to para 5 of the said Policy, the cadre of AAO was to be treated as entry-cum-promotional grade. Appointment to this cadre would be made by promotion as well as by direct recruitment and Paras 30 and 31 of the Policy respectively prescribe procedure therefor. Para 11 of the Policy provided that promotion to the cadre of AAO shall be made within the region and if employees who have been included in the ranking list of the said region but have not been promoted due to lack of vacancies available in their region may be allowed an option to fill up the vacancies of AAO in another region due to non availability of successful promotes in that region. Para 14 of the Policy provides that Promoting Authorities shall be nominated region- wise. Para 15 of the Policy provided that the vacancies for the year shall be worked out in the month of January every year keeping in view the organisational growth for the current year and the anticipated vacancies too. Para 30 of the Policy provided the conditions of eligibility for promotion and further provided that promotion shall be based on seniority, qualification, work record and interview. Para 31 of the Policy provided that graduate and post graduate employees with at least 50% (40% in case of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document