SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 35

KERALA HIGH COURT
Narendran, Chandrasekhara Menon, JJ
T. Padmanabhan v. Chairman FACT
Original Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. C. Sen
For the Respondents: Mr. K. A. Nayar

The denial of promotion based on uncommunicated adverse remarks in confidential reports is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Promotion - Petitioner denied promotion in 1977, 1980, and 1981, challenging non-communication of adverse remarks in confidential reports - The court held that lack of communication rendered the denial of promotion arbitrary and illegal - The case highlighted the failure of the promotion committee to adhere to the established guidelines, resulting in an unjust outcome for the petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 9)

(B) Promotion Guidelines - The case also addressed issues of qualifications and experience under the promotion policy, and the arbitrary nature of decisions made regarding promotion applicants. (Paras 4, 7)

1The petitioner is a Deputy Materials Manager (Acting) in the employ of the 1st respondent - The Fertilisers and Chemicals, Travancore Limited. The Deputy Manager (Materials), Deputy Manager (Development) etc., are in the scale of pay of Rs. 1550-2260. In this Original Petition he prays that the respondent may be directed by the issue of a writ of mandamus to make the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Materials) permanent from 1977 or from 1st May 1980, when the respondent filled up one post of Deputy Manager (Materials) by promoting Sri S. Parasuraman, or in the alternative from 1st June 1981 on which date the petitioner completed 15 years Managerial Experience under the amended rules. There is also a prayer to quash Ext. P-4 (Ext. P-5), dated 1st September 1981 promoting the 2nd respondent to the post of Deputy Manager (Materials) (scale Rs. 1550-2260) and Ext. P-6, dated 1st September 1981 promoting the 3rd respondent also to the said post (scale Rs. 1550-2260). Respondents 2 and 3 are persons who were promoted as early as 1st September 1981.

2The short facts necessary to understand the scope of the controversy raised in the O. P. are as follows:
The petitioner was an Advocate practising at Cannanore since 1st September, 1955. He entered the service of the 1st respondent company as Executive Assistant to Project Administrator of Cochin Division on 1st June 1966. He was promoted as Manager (Public Relations and Administration) in April, 1971. He was transferred to the Stores Department as Superintendent (Materials) in 1974. He was appointed as an Officer on Special Duty in 1978. In 1979 he was posted as Manager training. From 1971 the post was upgraded in the scale of Rs. 1350 to Rs. 1950. During the time he was in the Stores Department, he was sent for higher training twice. Since 1971 he is continuing in the same grade, Rs. 1350 to Rs. 1950. The next grade is Rs. 1550 to Rs. 2260, either as Deputy Manager Development/Deputy Materials Manager etc. Ignoring the valid claims of the petitioner, and in contravention of the guidelines for promotions, the first respondent promoted respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the post in 1981. At that time, it was understood that no writ petition was maintainable against Government-company. It was only, after Ajay Hasia's case AIR 1981 SC 487, it became clear that a writ petition has been held to be maintainable against a company owned by Government. So, the necessary steps were taken by the petitioner to vindicate his rights after sometime. Exts. P-1 and P-3 are the guidelines regarding promotions. Promotions were denied to the petitioner in 1977, 1980 and 1981. The petitioner was not promoted in 1977 though there were vacancies of two posts as Deputy Materials Manager in Cochin Division. It was presumably based on the confidential reports for the year 1976. As per clause 5(1) of Ext. P-1, the Promotion Committee shall carefully scrutinise the confidential reports and other documents relating to the service and performance of the employees. Normally candidates not having clear reports for the previous three years (3 years) may not be recommended for promotion. So, the confidential records, for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 could be considered. Out of these, the confidential records of the petitioner contained adverse remarks for 1976 and they were made by one K, p! K. Nair, General Manager, who was inimically disposed towards the petitioner. The confidential reports about the petitioner for the preceding year 1975 as also for the subsequent year 1977 were exemplary. Without communication of such adverse remarks that crept in for 1976, petitioner's promotion in 1977 was denied. The denial of promotion in 1977 without communicating the adverse remarks in the confidential reports (1976) is unauthorised. The entries in confidential reports were made in 1976 by Sri K. P. K. Nair, who was prejudiced against the petitioner. Again



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top