RAM RATTAN Vs. UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of judgment dated 25.3.2011 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein. In the said writ petition the appellant had made a grievance that he was wrongly denied promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the Scheduled Caste Category in the years 1992-93 and 1994 and sought mandamus to promote him as Senior Assistant from the post of Assistant (Typist). The learned Single Judge, for the reasons stated in the said order held that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion because of his non-selection in each of the years and did not find any fault with the selection process. The promotion policy of the respondent was taken note of which provided that selection is to be made on the basis of seniority, qualification and work record and also the appraisal criteria and weightage is to be given in respect of each of the aforesaid components namely, seniority, qualification and work record. On reading thereof, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that seniority alone was not the criteria for promotion as it was only one of the considerations, the promotion policy provided for preparation of ranking list under which different aspects have been given due weightage and to secure entry into the said ranking list it was incumbent for the SC candidate to obtain at least 30 marks in aggregate. Para 42 and 46 of the said Promotion Policy read as under:-

(2.) THE learned Single Judge noted the clarification given by the respondents in the counter affidavit stating 6 cumulative vacancies for ST candidates were shown as vacancies for SC candidates which was rectified inasmuch as SC candidates are concerned, there were only 3 vacancies. The learned single judge held that there was nothing wrong in showing 3 vacancies in SC candidates. Further as the appellant had himself admitted that the appellant had secured 29 marks which was less than the minimum qualifying marks i.e 30 marks, he was not ,,recommended for promotion.

(3.) IT is clear from the above that the appellant is seeking promotion only on the basis of 1992 promotion process undertaken by the respondents. As per the appellant, the official respondent published notice dated 27.5.1992 whereby 16 vacancies were published for the post of Senior Assistant which include 4 posts for SCs. He has stated the vacancy position as under:- Total General SC ST Eligible candidates Vacancies Genl. SC ST 16 9 4 3 36 11 NIL Total vacancies filled 12 9 3 NIL