- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
N.K Thakur, Assistan... v. Chairman-Cum-Managin...
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Hemant Gupta, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager employed with the respondent company, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote him to the post of Deputy Manager from the date his juniors were promoted, along with consequential benefits. The petitioner had qualified the departmental competitive examination under the respondent's pre-revised promotion policy. In the ranking list dated 27.9.1985 the petitioner was at serial No. 9; two juniors, Rakesh Mohan and Manjit Singh Arora, were at serial Nos. 11 and 13 respectively. Promotion to Deputy Manager is governed by the company's Promotion Policy for Class-1 Officers (reproduced in part in the record), which allocates numerical weightage across seniority, insurance qualifications and confidential report components (traits, performance, growth potential) for a total of 100 marks.
The respondents provided the petitioner's assigned marks: Seniority 30; Traits in Confidential Reports 19.47/20; Performance 20/25; Growth Potential 21/25 — totaling 90.47 out of 100. The petitioner was placed at rank 55 overall; candidates up to serial No. 31, each with 92.53 marks, were selected and promoted to Deputy Manager. The petitioner also filed a Review Representation under Clause-14 of the Promotion Policy, but no decision on that representation had been communicated before the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, despite qualifying and having a higher ranking, is entitled to promotion to Deputy Manager when juniors with lower ranking were promoted.
- Whether the respondents' application of the Promotion Policy and assigned marks to the petitioner was arbitrary or illegal, thereby vitiating the promotions of the juniors.
- Whether the non-communication/non-decision on the petitioner's Review Representation under Clause-14 of the Promotion Policy renders the promotion process invalid or confers any enforceable right to promotion.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that he was ignored for promotion even though he had qualified the departmental examination and had a higher rank in the ranking list.
- He alleged that his juniors (specifically Rakesh Mohan and Manjit Singh Arora) were promoted illegally and arbitrarily while his claim was rejected.
- The petitioner asserted that the respondents did not provide a detailed statement and grading of marks of the selected candidates.
- The petitioner pointed out that he had filed a Review Representation under Clause-14 of the Promotion Policy but no decision had been communicated, implying that the promotion process should be considered vitiated or incomplete.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents produced the Promotion Policy criteria (Rule 7.1), showing quantitative weightage for seniority, insurance qualifications, and components of the Confidential Report (traits, performance, growth potential) totaling 100 marks.
- They stated that the petitioner was assigned marks in each category (total 90.47) and was placed at rank 55; promotions were made up to serial No. 31 where candidates had obtained 92.53 marks.
- The respondents submitted that since the petitioner did not secure marks within the grading of officers considering the number of posts, he could not claim promotion merely because juniors were promoted; he had a right only to consideration, which he received.
- The respondents relied on the decision in K. Samantary v. National Insurance Company Limited (reported in the record) as authority upholding such a Promotion Policy.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Samantary v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 9 SCC 286 : 2003 (6) SLR 1 (SC) | Permissibility of an employer specifying weightage between merit and seniority in promotion policy; employer may codify criteria unless the policy is a colourable exercise or violates statutory rules. | The respondents relied on this case to support the validity of their Promotion Policy. The Court cited and accepted the proposition that the employer could lay down the area and parameters of weightage for merit and seniority, and that having such a policy was permissible in the absence of statutory rules governing promotions. |
| Sher Singh v. Surinder Kumar, (1998) 9 SCC 652 : AIR 1998 SC 2289 : 1998 (4) SLR 357 (SC) | Where rules provided for seniority-cum-merit, but the employer adopted merit-cum-seniority (a different criterion), the selection so made was unsustainable. | The petitioner relied on this case. The Court distinguished it on the facts, observing that in the present case promotions were made in terms of the Policy formulated by the employer and thus Sher Singh did not support the petitioner's claim. |
| B.V. Sivaiah (case referenced in the quoted passage) | Illustrates a situation where statutory rules governed promotions and fixing terms at variance with statutory rules was impermissible. | The K. Samantary quotation in the record referred to B.V. Sivaiah as distinguishable; the Court noted that in the present matter there were no statutory rules operating prior to formulation of the policy, so B.V. Sivaiah did not apply to the facts before the Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by identifying and applying the Promotion Policy (Rule 7.1) as the governing framework for promotion to Deputy Manager. It observed the following key analytical steps, based on the material placed on record:
- Identification of Criteria: The Court noted that Rule 7.1 sets out the components and numerical weightage (seniority, insurance qualifications, traits in Confidential Reports, performance, growth potential) comprising 100 marks in total for assessment.
- Application to the Petitioner: The Court recorded the specific marks assigned to the petitioner — seniority 30, traits 19.47/20, performance 20/25, growth potential 21/25 — totaling 90.47 marks and resulting in an overall rank (55) that placed him outside the group selected for promotion (up to serial No. 31 with 92.53 marks).
- Administrative Discretion and Absence of Mala Fide: The Court observed that the grading and marking were within the administrative wisdom of the Selection Committee. There was no allegation of mala fide against any member of the Committee in assigning marks.
- Effect of Non-decision on Review Representation: The Court held that the mere fact that the petitioner's Review Representation had not been decided did not vitiate the promotion process once the criteria and ranking had been disclosed in the writ proceedings, and therefore did not confer any enforceable right to promotion on the petitioner.
- Authority and Distinguishment of Precedents: The Court relied on K. Samantary as upholding the legitimacy of such promotion policies that allocate weightage between merit and seniority in the absence of statutory rules. It distinguished Sher Singh (which invalidated selections where an employer applied a criterion inconsistent with governing statutory rules), finding the present facts to be within the ambit of the employer's permissible policy-making.
- Conclusion on Relief: On the basis that the petitioner had been considered and assigned marks consistent with the Promotion Policy and that he fell short of the marks/position necessary for selection, the Court concluded the petitioner could not sustain a claim for mandamus to direct promotion.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is dismissed. The Court found no merit in the writ petition and made no order as to costs.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought (promotion to the post of Deputy Manager) and the promotions already made to other candidates are not set aside by this Court.
- The Court treated the respondent's Promotion Policy as a valid basis for promotion decisions in the absence of applicable statutory rules and relied on precedent upholding an employer's ability to prescribe weightage between merit and seniority. The opinion does not purport to set a new precedent beyond applying established principles; it confines its decision to the facts and the policy as applied in this case.
Disposition recorded in the opinion: "Petition dismissed." (No order as to costs.)
Hemant Gupta, J.:— The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Manager with. the respondent-Company has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner qualified the departmental competitive examination in terms of the pre revised promotion policy of the respondent company.
3. The petitioner's ranking was at serial No. 9 in the ranking list dated 27.9.1985, whereas Rakesh Mohan and Manjit Singh Arora were mentioned at serial Nos. 11 and 13 respectively in the said ranking list.
4. The next promotion from the post of Assistant Manager, on which the petitioner was working, is to the post of Deputy Manager. The promotion to the post of Deputy Manager is governed by the Promotion Policy for Class-1 Officers. The said Policy contemplates the criteria for promotion and weightage to be granted to the various aspects while considering the claim for promotion.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that while considering the case of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, he has been ignored, but his juniors i.e Rakesh Mohan and Manjit Singh Arora have been promoted. The challenge of the petitioner is that his juniors have been promoted illegally, arbitrarily, whereas the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager has been rejected. In reply to the writ petition, the criteria for promotion has been mentioned, which is reproduced as under:—
“(7) Criteria for pro???notion and weightage:
7.1 Selection for promotion shall be based on Seniority, Insurance Qualifications and Merit-cum-Growth potentials as brought out in performance appraisals. In assessment, the maximum weightage in terms of numerical marks from cadre of A.M to Deputy Manager will be as under:—
(a) Seniority : 30 (b) Insurance Qualification : (c) C.R
Form: i) Traits in C.R : 20 ii) Performance : 25 iii) Growth Potential : 25 Total. : 100
6. It has been further pointed out that since the petitioner is senior, he has been granted 30 marks for seniority; 19.47 marks out of maximum 20 marks for traits in the Confidential Reports; 20 marks out of maximum 25 marks for performance and 21 marks out of maximum 25 marks for growth potential. It is pointed out that total marks secured by the petitioner are 90.47 marks out of total of maximum 100 marks. The petitioner's rank was 55. The candidates upto Serial No. 31, who has obtained 92.53 marks, were granted promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. Since the petitioner has not secured marks within the grading of the Officers keeping in view the number of posts, the petitioner cannot claim promotion merely on the basis that his juniors have been promoted. The petitioner has a right of consideration for promotion. The petitioner has been considered and assigned suitable marks by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for promotion is not justified/Apart from this, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “K. Samantary v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 9 SCC 286 : [2003 (6) SLR 1 (SC)]”, wherein such Promotion Policy has been upheld.
7. In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has not disputed the marks assigned to him, but asserted that the respondents have not given the detailed statement and grading of marks of the selected candidates, therefore, action of the respondents is not tenable. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has filed a Review Representation in terms of Clause-14 of the Promotion Policy, but no decision has been communicated on the said Review Representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner for the post of Deputy Manager is unwarranted, illegal and arbitrary.
8. The mere fact that the decision on the Review Representation has not been communicated to the petitioner, will not render the process of promotion as vitiated. Once the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court wherein the criteria for promotion and the ranking has been disclosed, the mere fact that his Review Representation has not been decided, will not confer any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner.
9. A perusal of Rule 7.1 of the Rules, as reproduced above, would show that the promotion to the post of Deputy Manager is based upon the Seniority-Insurance Qualifications, Traits in Confidential Reports, Performance and Growth Potential. The marks have been assigned in respect of each of these aspects to the petitioner as well. Merely because that he has not been able to be with in 31 successful candidates, will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to allege that his juniors have been promoted illegally and arbitrarily. The manner in grading the Officers was within the administrative wisdom of the Selection Committee. There is no mala fide alleged against any of the members of the Selection Committee in assigning particular marks to any candidate. It may be noted that the Promotion Policy has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Samantary's case (supra), wherein it has been held to the following effect:—
11. While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is always open to the employer to specify the area and parameter of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately so long as policy is not colourable exercise of power, nor has the effect of violating any statutory scope of interference and other relatable matters. The decision in B.V Sivaiah case is clearly distinguishable on facts and in law. That was a case where statutory rules governed the field. This Court, inter alia, held that fixing terms which are at variance with the statutory rules is impermissible. In the case at hand prior to the formulation of policy in February, 1990, there were no codified prescriptions. It was the stand of the respondent employer that prior to the formulation of the policy, certain guidelines existed and the objectives of the policy were to rationalize and codify the existing guidelines relating to promotions within officers' cadre. There is no statutory rule operating. It is for the employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion, the same pertaining really to the area of policy making. It was, therefore, permissible for the respondent to have their own criteria for adjudging claims on the primacy to merit as well, depending upon the class, category and nature of posts in the hierarchy of administration and the requirements of efficiency for such posts.
12. Reading of the whole policy reveals that stress was not on seniority alone and weightage was sought to be imposed on merit and other relevant aspects also.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “Sher Singh v. Surinder Kumar, (1998) 9 SCC 652 : AIR 1998 SC 2289 : [1998 (4) SLR 357 (SC)]”. The said judgment pertains to promotion from amongst the post of Clerks in the Himachal Gramin Bank. It was found that the Bank has adopted criteria of merit-cum-seniority though the Rule was seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the selection made was not sustainable. In the present-case, promotion has been made on the basis of merit in terms of the Policy. The promotion has been made in terms of the criteria framed by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the judgment ???lied upon by the petitioner is not of any help to the petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Petition dismissed.
Alert