Promotion criteria based on a transparent policy involving seniority, qualifications, and work record, rather than solely on seniority-cum-merit.

Order :

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby the private respondent nos. 3 to 9 have been given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

2. The facts germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant (T) with the respondent - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 04.12.1986.

3. On being eligible, the petitioner and other eligible candidates applied for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and a panel of personnel showing eligible person for promotion was published on 10.10.2003, in which petitioner’s name was reflected at serial no.13, while the names of private respondents were shown below the petitioner.

4. But, when the list of candidates for promotion was issued on 17.11.2003, the petitioner did not find his name, while the private respondents were promoted. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2003 by asserting that since the petitioner is senior to private respondents, he should have been accorded promotion.

5. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is admittedly senior to the private respondents and, therefore, non-grant of promotion to the petitioner is illegal and the promotion order dated 17.11.2003 is arbitrary and against the settled principle of service jurisprudence, which postulates that when promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, the seniority cannot be ignored.

6. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the communication dated 05.12.2003 (Annexure-5) and submitted that the petitioner’s work appraisal has been outstanding and, therefore, the respondent-Company has erred in not granting him promotion.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of R.B. Desai & Anr. vs. S.K. Khanolker & Ors., reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 1216 (Para No.9); and B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors., reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1656 (Para No.18).

8. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent – Company at the outset submitted that the petitioner’s contention is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as the criteria for promotion in the instant case is not seniority-cum-merit. He argued that the respondent-Company has adopted a transparent policy, in which weightage has been given to seniority, qualification and work record and, therefore, the case of a candidate has to be decided on the basis of criteria laid down in Clause 36 of the policy.

9. Learned counsel argued that the panel (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent – Company was only a panel of eligible candidates to be considered for the process of promotion in terms of Clause 16 of the policy.

10. Inviting Court’s attention towards Para No.14 & 15 of the reply, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the case of the petitioner so also of the candidates mentioned in panel (Annexure-3) were considered and thereafter on the basis of work record, as per Clause 40, the marks were awarded to each of the candidates. He asserted that it was only thereafter, the list (based on marks secured by each candidates) was prepared, in which the private respondents marched ahead of the petitioner and were, promoted.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. A perusal of the scheme of promotion reveals that the respondent-Company has adopted a systematic and transparent policy for promotion, which prescribes different criteria viz., seniority, qualification and work record. Therefore, the criteria is not essentially seniority-cum-merit, but one involving mixed criteria comprising of due weightage to seniority, qualification and work record.

13. It is to be noted that 40 posts were advertised for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, out of which 14 posts were for unserved category qua which the petitioner had vied.

14. The promotion policy issued by the respondent – Company, more particularly clause 29 pr