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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41868

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Vidya Sagar, G. Sai Prasen
For the Respondents: Not listed

Reservation in promotion policies for SC/ST categories is not applicable in grades where direct recruitment exceeds 75% of the total posts, and claims for retrospective seniority and promotion are barred by the doctrines of laches and the necessity to implead all affected parties.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 16(4) and 16(4A) - Promotion Policy - Reservation in promotion - Writ petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Tribe, challenged non-grant of promotion to higher grades (E-V and E-VI) from dates earlier than those granted by the employer - Court observed that the employer is a Public Sector Undertaking where direct recruitment for Group A posts exceeds 75%, thereby negating the obligation for reservation in promotions as per prevailing Government of India office memoranda - Petitioner's claim was further hit by delay and laches for remaining silent for years after alleged denial of promotion and failing to implead affected juniors whose seniority would be adversely impacted. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of Bharat Electronics Limited belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, contended that he was denied timely promotions to Manager (E-V) and Deputy General Manager (E-VI) due to the employer's failure to implement reservation policies in promotions. He sought retrospective promotion and seniority, claiming he was affected by juniors being promoted ahead of him.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petition was devoid of merits due to, inter alia, inordinate delay in filing, failure to implead affected parties, and the fact that direct recruitment to the relevant executive grades exceeded 75%, exempting the employer from reservation requirements under the cited Government of India guidelines.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion and seniority based on the reservation policy for Scheduled Tribes, and whether the petition is maintainable despite the delay and failure to implead affected parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Reservation in promotion is not mandatory where direct recruitment exceeds 75% of the total posts. Furthermore, service matters involving claims of retrospective seniority are governed by the principle of vigilance and cannot be raised after significant delay if such claims would adversely affect the rights of third parties not before the court.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. examining reservation policies in recruitment-heavy cadres. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal standard for equal opportunity and reservation in employment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bars to relief due to delay, non-joinder, and categorical exemption from reservation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

O R D E R:

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. On 12.10.2011, 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 above are included in Group ‘A’ which fact is not disputed by petitio

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