G RAJA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The point involved in both the writ petitions is the same. In fact the petitioner in W.P.No.11903 of 1988 is, one of the petitioners in W.P.No.6440 of 1988.

(2.) The facts in W.P.No.6440of 1988 are stated for purposes of understanding the nature of the point involved. Petitioners were recruited as Assistants in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (herein after referred to as the 'L.I.C.') on various dates between 1961 to 1967. Promotional post for such Assistants is Higher Grade Assistants (H.G.As). A selection list for promotion to the category of H.G.A. was released by the 4th respondent on 29-9-1982 and the names of the petitioners were shown at SI.Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9,13,14 and 17. This ranking was based on aggregate marks secured by each of the candidates in the list, considering factors like seniority, qualifications, appraisal of Confidential Reports and interview. From the post of H.G.A. the next promotion is Assistant Administrative Officer (A.A.O.). The feeder categories for the post of H.G.A. are; (1) Section Heady; (2) Stenographers and (3) Assistants and all other employees, who are in the scales of Section Heads or Assistants. The condition for eligibility is as prescribed by the Regulations which are known as L.I.C. Promotion Regulations, 1976 (here in aftre referred to as the 'Regulations'). On 1-2-1979 the Executive Director of L.I.C. issued a Circular No.3589/ASP/79 clarifying the conditions of eligibility for promotions under the Regulations. It may be stated that the new Rules were issued in 1987. The petitioners contend that they were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of A.A.O. as per the eligibility prescribed in the clarifications issued by theL.I.C on 1-2-1979. Inspite of such clarification, they were not considered for the post of A.A.O. on the ground that they had not become eligibile for the said promotion. It is this action of the respondent- L.I.C of not considering the petitioners for promoting to the post of A.A.O., which is challenged by the present writ petition.

(3.) While in W.P.No.6440 of 1988 the petitioners were not considered forpromotion to the category of A.A.O (Admn.) in W.P.No.11903 of 1988 the sole petitioner therein claimed that he was entitled to be considered for promotion even to the post of A.A.O. (Programmer). He was not considered even for the post of A.A.O. and hence a separate petition was filed by him challenging the respondents action.