Back
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Parveen Arora – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure P-1) whereby claim of the petitioner has been declined.
2. The petitioner on 10.05.1988 joined respondent-organization as Typist and she was promoted to the post of Stenographer in 1989. She became entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, however, she was not extended benefit of promotion though she was considered in the promotional exercise of 1999 (Annexure P-2), 2002 (Annexure P-5) and 2003 (Annexure P-10). The respondent vide order dated 08.09.2004 has rejected claim of the petitioner holding that during preceding years different persons have been promoted as per policy. No candidate who ranked below petitioner has been promoted. The panel prepared for interview cannot be treated as final ranking list whereas final ranking list is prepared after adding marks obtained on account of work record and in the interview. The relevant extracts of the order read as:
The court cannot substitute the Selection Committee's discretion in promotion decisions, emphasizing the importance of total marks in determining eligibility.
Promotion criteria based on a transparent policy involving seniority, qualifications, and work record, rather than solely on seniority-cum-merit.
Promotion policies must prioritize merit for advancing to higher scales, and the assessment must adhere to established objective criteria without bias or arbitrariness.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotions must be based on seniority subject to fitness, not solely on merit or ACR grading, as per the applicable rules.
The respondents were obligated to communicate to the petitioners all the APARs irrespective of whether they were adverse or not.
The principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' requires that promotions must prioritize seniority among candidates who meet a minimum merit standard, and any deviation from this principle renders the promoti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of 'merit cum seniority' was applicable to the promotional posts in question, and the petitioner failed to satisfy this test, le....
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
