S B MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Short points involved in this writ petition are (i) whether the rule which provides promotion on seniority-cum-merit would mean comparative merit only or seniority and then merit. (ii) whether the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee based on misleading facts can be sustained in law?

(2.) In order to answer the above points let us have quick glance at the facts of this case. The petitioner was appointed as Sales Assistant by the respondent No.2 i.e. Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. (in short the Corporation). He got promotions from time to time and finally promoted as Manager on 1st January,1993. Respondent No.3 Shri M.L.Chugh was also promoted on 1st January,1993 alongwith petitioner. Respondent No.3 was junior to the petitioner by two steps through out. Respondent No.3 started working in the Personnel Department and thus, according to the petitioner, manipulated to win over the Additional General Manager (Personnel) in his favour. He got the petitioner transferred to showroom and himself continued to work as P.S. to the Chairman beside being shown as Manager in the Personnel Department. Mr.Chugh never allowed the petitioner to remain in any one department for a period of more than one year. Mr.Chug manipulating plump post for himself. The petitioner had to suffer 17 transfers in a span of 17 years. Since Mr.Chugh had been working in the Administration and Personnel Department for the last 33 years, therere, he manipulated the promotion in his favour. Petitioner's record had remained unblemished. He had obtained good remarks in his CRs. No adverse entry was ever communicated to him. In May,1995 some allegations were levelled against the petitioner. He refuted the same in his reply. Thereafter nothing was heard nor any communication was received from the respondent meaning thereby that those allegations were found to be false against the petitioner. Inspite of petitioner being senior to Mr.Chug, the respondent vide office order dated 15th June, 1996 circulated the promotion order to the post of Add.General Manager. Vide this order Mr.Chug has been promoted to the post of AGM thereby superceding the petitioner. By this act of the respondent the petitioner has felt aggrieved.

(3.) That the procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the DPC) for making promotion to the post of Additional General Manager had been against the rule hence bad in law. The DPC violated the rules governing the promotion known as CCIC Officers Policy. This was promulgated vide office order No.396 dated 28th September,1994 and this came into force w.e.f. 14th February,1994. The promotion policy is applicable to the person holding the post of Deputy Manager and above. Prior to this promotion policy there was another promotion policy which was published vide office order dated 11th May,1987. The said promotion policy drew distinction between criteria of promotion on seniority-cum-merit and the criteria of promotion on merit and fitness/ merit. The promotion policy of 1987 indicated that normal promotion from Assistant Manager to Additional General manager was time bound. The promotion was time bound and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, in the case of accelerated promotion the same was required to be made on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports subject to merit and fitness in contrast to seniority-cum-merit. Promotion from Assistant General Manager to Additional General Manager was required to be made on the basis of merit alone. Therefore, there was clear distinction between promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and on the basis of merit alone. But in the case of present promotion policy the Annual Confidential Reports and record of service of the candidate was to be assessed but weightage had to be given in seniority.