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) 68415

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

Reservation in promotions for SC/ST is not applicable to grades where the element of direct recruitment exceeds 75%, and claims for retrospective promotion or seniority are barred by principles of delay and laches if the aggrieved party fails to challenge the promotional process in a timely manner.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 16(4) and 16(4A) - Reservation in promotions - Delay and Laches - Petitioner challenged the denial of his promotion to various executive cadres and sought retrospective seniority - It was observed that when the direct recruitment to the post exceeds 75%, the rule of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not applicable as per government guidelines - Additionally, the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner failed to challenge the promotion lists for several years and did not implead the necessary parties whose seniority would be adversely affected by granting the relief. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, belonging to the ST community and employed at Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), sought retrospective promotion and seniority, contending that the employer failed to implement reservation policies for SC/ST categories in executive promotions. The petitioner alleged he was denied promotions starting from 2002 and 2008 and filed the writ petition in 2013 after finally receiving a promotion to the DGM grade in 2012.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the promotions of his juniors for years and did not implead them as respondents. Furthermore, the court found that the recruitment to the relevant executive posts was 100% via direct recruitment, thereby exempting the company from reservation requirements in those grades under government guidelines.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion and seniority based on the implementation of reservation policies for the ST category, and whether the petition is maintainable despite the delay in filing and the non-joinder of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' mandates that those who sleep on their rights cannot seek relief after long delays; moreover, reservation policies in promotion do not apply to cadres where direct recruitment exceeds the 75% threshold.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges denial of st reservation in promotions; employer argues high direct recruitment percentage negates reservation applicability. (Para 1 , 2)
2. examination of constitutional provisions regarding public employment equality and reservation applicability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. dismissal due to delay, laches, and sufficient existing representation of reserved categories. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

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

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