P SURYA RAO Vs. MADRAS REFINERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan,3., in W.P.No.2327 of 1981. The petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant herein. The respondent in the writ petition are the respondents herein. The parties are being referred to in this judgment as per their array in the writ petition.The petitioner is in the employee of the first respondent. Expressing a grievance that his right to promotion to the supervisory cadre has been overlooked from 1975 onwards, that he is entitled to promotion from 1-11-1975 and that respondents 2 to 12 ought not to have been promoted in preference to him, the petitioner filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to promote the petitioner to the supervisory cadre with retrospective effect from 1-11-1975. Mohan.J., heard the matter on 20-1-1983 and the learned Judge took note of the objection put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the existence of an alternative remedy under the Standing Orders governing the services under the first respondent, of the delay on the part of the petitioner in coming to Court to unsettle promotions effected even as early as 1975, of the fact that the norms of promotion are not seniority exclusively, but also merits and the petitioner did not possess the requisite merits, and of the fact that the petitioner has come to be promoted on 1-7-1982 after the filing of the writ petition and dismissed the same. It was found that the petitioner was not represented by his counsel when the matter was heard on 20-1-1983 and hence, the matter was, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, heard on 27-1-1983 and the learned Judge found no warrant, even after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,to take a different view but only observed that if the petitioner is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from 1-11-1975, that is a matter on which he will have to agitate and take his rights.

(2.) Mr.G.K.Damodar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not make a grievance over the hearing of the matter at the first instance on 20-1-1983 by the learned single Judge when there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Obviously, the learned counsel had the benefit of audience and representation before the learned single Judge on 27-1-1983. No grievance is also expressed before us with regard to lack of opportunity to present the case on behalf of the petitioner in full before the learned single Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made his submissions on all the aspects and we are dealing with them as hereunder.

(3.) Promotion to supervisory cadre is by selection. Merit and ability alone counted. Seniority cannot be urged as the sole criterion for effecting promotions. The question of promotion from workman to supervisory cadre, which the petitioner claims, is governed by two settlements one dated 23-12-1970 and the other dated 29-12-1980, under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the settlement dated 23-12-1970, promotion to supervisory cadre was to be based purely on merits. The selection was done on an assessment of overall demonstrated ability and performance on the job, gauged in terms of dependability, judgment, decisiveness, etc. Under the subsequent settlement dated 29-12-1980, for the purpose of promotion, marks were allotted to Pre-MRL (first respondent company) service and MRL (first respondent company) service, qualification and merits. These facts were not and could not be dispufed before us because they are matters of record.