K SAMANTARAY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been working as an Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Company Limited (for short, "the Company"). In the year 1990, a promotion policy for Class I officers of the Company was formulated. In accordance with the said promotion policy, promotions of officers of the Company were considered and by a notice dated 30th of April, 1991 of the Company, the list of officers selected for promotion from the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager to that of Assistant Manager for the year 1991 -92 was declared. In the said list, the name of the petitioner did not find place whereas the names of many officers who were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager were included. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.5.1991 to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Company stating therein that twenty -one officers out of forty -two promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager have superseded him in the promotional exercise of 1991 -92. The said representation of the petitioner against his non -promotion was considered in the review meeting of the Lower Management Service committee held on 19th of June, 1991, but the said committee did not change its earlier recommendation in the case of the petitioner. By a communication dated 16th of July, 1992 of the Company, the petitioner was informed that his representation has been rejected. Again by a notice dated 9th of April, 1992 of the Company, a list of officers selected for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Manager for 1992 -93 was declared and in the said list also, the petitioner's name did not find place whereas the names of many of his juniors in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager were included. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.5.1992 to the Chairman of the Company stating therein that five officers out of eleven promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager have superseded him in the promotional exercise of the year 1992 -93. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the committee in its Review Meeting held on 18.6.1992 but the committee did not find it possible to change its earlier recommendation. Aggrieved by his non -promotion to the cadre of Assistant Manager in the years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaring para 7.1 of the policy as bad in law and for quashing the promotional exercises of 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 and for quashing the communication of the Company rejecting his representation against his non -promotion and for a direction to the opposite party to promote the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) MR . I. C. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it will be clear from para 1.2 of the promotion policy of the Company formulated in the year 1990 that promotion of officers was to be through a process of selection on the basis of theft seniority -cum -merit. He argued relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. V. Sivaiah and Ors. etc. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. etc., JT1998 (50) SC 96, that the expression "seniority -cum -merit" means that seniority will have priority over merit. But, para 7.1 of the promotion policy allots only 42 marks out of 100 for seniority and the balance marks out of 100 are for merit in promotions from the rank of Administrative Officer to that of Assistant Manager, thus giving merit priority over seniority. Mr. Dash vehemently contended that para 7.1 of the promotion policy is thus inconsistent with para 1.2 of the promotion policy and is liable to be quashed by the Court as bad in law. He pointed out that as a matter of fact, a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has already held in the case of Mohindra Kumar Bali v. The National Insurance Company and Ors., in the Judgment dated 9th of May, 2000 that allocation of marks prescribed under para 7.1 is absolutely unreasonable and irrational and has got no nexus with the object in para 1.2 of the policy sought to be achieved by the promotional policy and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and has quashed the same.

(3.) PARAGRAPHS 1.2 and 7.1 of the promotion policy of the Company formulated in the year 1990 are extracted herein below: