CHAIRMAN, Vs. SARASWATHI GOPAKUMAR DEPUTY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter "LIC" ), the employer and the writ petitioner, the employee are both before us in appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The parties are referred to from their status in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner who joined as Assistant Administrative Officer with the LIC in the year 1990 was promoted as Divisional Manager in the year 2007. In 2012 her batch mates have been promoted as Senior Divisional Managers and the grievance was that, the petitioner alone was denied such promotion. It was contended that the LIC does not follow a set selection procedure and a mere comparative assessment of the confidential reports of the employees, coming within the zone of consideration, is made to determine the inter se merit. This brings in an element of arbitrariness which alone resulted in the petitioner being denied promotion, while all her contemporaries were promoted. The petitioner's specific grievance was that she was singled out to be denied promotion in the selections conducted from the year 2012 to 2016. She claimed retrospective promotion from the year 2012, when first of her batch mates were promoted to the post of Senior Divisional Manager.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that the LIC of India Staff Regulations of 1960 provided for an assessment of merit and suitability on the basis of confidential reports and/or interviews and/or examinations. The method adopted by the LIC was of comparative analysis of the confidential reports of the employees coming within the zone of consideration for promotion. The comparative analysis of the confidential reports for the purpose of assessment, it was found, legitimately led to elimination of certain persons. The petitioner's claim that her merit is very evident from the fact that she was chosen for a foreign assignment was negatived finding that this would not by itself entitle her to claim promotion in the substantive higher post. LIC was directed to furnish comparative chart of evaluation of ACR's conducted, with respect to the petitioner and other candidates. The respondent Corporation complied with the direction, by an affidavit dated 18.11.2016. On an examination of the chart furnished, it was found that a grading was given to various candidates who were considered for promotion to the post of Senior Divisional Manager in the year 2016-17. The evaluation by comparison of ACR's of various candidates was done based on different factors and grading was done variously on different attributes, both by reporting officers as well as reviewing officers. It is on the comparison of such grading given by the controlling officers, over a span of five years, that the officers were considered for promotion. The procedure was found to be flawless, but the learned Single Judge relying on Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others (AIR 2013 SC 2741) found that the assessments in the ACR's of the petitioner were never communicated to her prior to 2014, which resulted in a serious infraction of the right of the petitioner to represent against such entries. It was also found that in the years in which the assessments were not communicated there were grading inferior to what was already recorded in the earlier years. In such circumstances, it was found that there was serious irregularity insofar as the denial of promotion to the petitioner; when the down-grading in the ACR's were not communicated.