Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1072
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
B.raju, Hyd – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32233 of 2013
Decided on : 07-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM
For the Respondent: V UMA DEVI
Promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must adhere to policy requirements, and claims must be made timely to be valid; delay undermines the entitlement to relief.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 16(4) and 16(4A) - Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Claim for retrospective promotion denied due to lack of implementation of reservation policy - Court emphasizes the need for timely claims and adherence to procedures by petitioner. (Paras 5, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Administrative Law - Delay and latches - Petitioner’s inaction regarding promotion claims and failure to join necessary parties affects the merits of the case - Court highlights principles regarding vigilance in legal claims. (Paras 8, 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of the ST community, claimed denial of timely promotions in Bharat Electronics Limited despite being eligible, arguing misapplication of reservation policies. The petitioner was promoted after a prolonged delay and sought earlier promotions retrospectively, which the employer denied citing recruitment norms.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that sufficient representation of SC/ST in BEL negated claims for retrospective promotion and emphasized the necessity for timely challenges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the implementation of reservation in promotions and the procedural lapses of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s claims lacked merit due to significant delay, non-joining of necessary parties affected by claims, and adequate representation of SC/ST categories in promotions.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's promotion claims based on st reservation. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent's stance on promotion policies and sc/st representation. (Para 2) |
| 3. supreme court decisions on sc/st reservation principle. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis on delay and lack of respondents. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. outcome: writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Petitioner claims to be belonging to ST community. He was appointed as Deputy Engineer (E-II) in Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) on 23.10.1989 and got promotions as Senior Engineer (E-III) in 1994; as Deputy Manager (E-IV) in 1998 and as Manager (E-V) in 2004. He contends that he was eligible to hold the post of Manager (E-V) in the year 2002 itself, but was not promoted for four times. He also Contends that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (E-VI) in July 2008, but was not promoted and he was denied promotion as DGM in 2009, 2010 and 2011, instead some of his juniors were promoted respectively. He subsequently, was promoted as DGM (E-VI) on 29.06.2012.
1.1. It is the case of petitioner that in view of denial of promotion for the years mentioned above, petitioner made a representation to the Chairman & Managing Director, Director (HR), General Manager, Hyderabad, for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager E-6 on 21.06.2011, followed by representation dated 06.09.2011 to the National Commission for SC & ST. Respondent/employer submitted reply to the Commission on 27.09.2011. On12.10.2011, the National Commission forwarded the reply to the BEL for information and comments. For the same, respondent/employer submitted reply and petitioner filed rejoinder. After hearing both the parties, the Commission advised the Chairman & Managing Director to look into the case and report compliance.
1.2. According to petitioner, he was given promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager on 29.06.2012. On receipt of which, petitioner and his wife made several representations to different authorities seeking to give effect to his promotion from 2008. He further contended that respondent employer had not implemented reservations in promotions as per the Constitution and policy laid down for promotions. It is stated, if promotion is given effect from 2008, he would have been occupied the post of DGM E-VI cadre earlier than what he got now. There is no ST candidate either junior or senior in promotion cadre. Petitioner states that employer has not maintained roster for effecting promotions in Higher Category. The percentage of vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes i.e. 15 ½ and 7½ . He also contended that he was transferred to Machilipatnam and Chennai with a view to harass him.
1.3. Petitioner contends that had the BEL implemented the rule of reservation in promotions as enunciated by the Government of India from time to time, he would have got promotion as Manager (E-V) in 2002 itself and would have got the next promotions much earlier. It is stated, Promotion Policy in BEL is as under:
The Executive Posts in BEL are grouped as:
| Sl.no | Clusters | E |
| 1 | C-I | E-I |
| 2 | C-II | E-II, E-III, E-IV |
| 3 | C-III | E-V, E-VI, E-VI A |
| 4 | C-IV | E-VII |
Promotion within the same cluster:
E-II to E-III- 3 1/2 years
E-III to E-IV - 3 years
E-V to E-VI- 4 years
E-VI to E-VIA- 2 years
E-VIA to E-VII-2 years
Clause-9 of the promotion policy provides: Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, instructions on reservations for SC/ST from the Government of India received from time to time, shall be followed. In respect of promotions from E-V to E- VI A and E-VI to E-VII, the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by Chairman and Managing Director, Functional Director as Member and Director (Personnel) as Member Secretary will consider the cases.
2. The case of respondent Bharat Electronics Limited is that as per the orders issued by the 1st respondent-Corporate Office dated 12.05.1992, Grade E-II and
