Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dinesh Mehta, J
Rajendra Raj Munot – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurence Co. Ltd. – Respondent
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
Promotion criteria based on a transparent policy involving seniority, qualifications, and work record, rather than solely on seniority-cum-merit.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
The principle of merit supersedes seniority in the promotion process when assessing suitability for higher positions.
Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.
The court cannot substitute the Selection Committee's discretion in promotion decisions, emphasizing the importance of total marks in determining eligibility.
Promotions must be made in accordance with the merit-cum-seniority list prepared as per Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.01.2009, and ignoring seniority to promote juniors is a violation of the rule p....
The principle of seniority-cum-merit was applied, and the court emphasized the requirement to offer promotion based on seniority after crossing the minimum threshold marks.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
