KHUSHAL SINGH AND Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions contain a challenge to merit list prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the New India Assurance Company Limited and in particular for a restraint against promoting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the claims of the petitioner trouncing the aspect of seniority. In both the cases, it is seen that the management of the respondent-Corporation had declared the results of the promotion test for Class-III/IV employees held at various centres and the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 5804 of 1990 has been placed at Sr. No. 12 in the order of merit in competitive test. The petitioner in C.W.P. No. 9958 of 1989 had been placed at Sr. No. 13 in the said list. The names of O.P. Sahota and M.K. Kagra, who are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in C.W.P. No. 9955 of 1989 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in C.W.P. No. 5408 of 1990 did not find a place. Subsequently, when a ranking list of the Assistant Administrative Officer for the Northern Region had been released on 17.12.1987 from amongst the persons in the reserved category, none of the above parties name find a place. It appears that by a circular in the year 1988, a ranking list for SC/ST employees for promotion to the category AAOs had been made. A subsequent proceeding issued by the promoting authority on 06.09.1988 took note of the fact that there had been limitations of the number of promotion vacancies available for one time special promotion exercise and not of the ST candidates, who had competed for the one time special promotion exercise could be excluded as per the ranking list issued in the year 1988. Such of those SC/ST employees, whose names could not be included due to limitation of vacancies in the respective regions was subsequently included in the merit list published in the order of rating. The list of such employees in the order of merit rating when it was released on 06.09.1988 placed the petitioner-Jay Shree Kaur in C.W.P. No. 5408 of 1990 at Sr. No. 12 and placed the petitioner Khushal Singh in C.W.P. No. 9955 of 1989 at Sr. No. 6. O.P. Sahota had been placed at Sr. No. 20 and M.K. Kagra had been placed at Sr. No. 21. The proceedings stated that the merit list shall automatically be treated as cancelled once the unfilled vacancies are filled in.

(2.) The controversy arose only because on a subsequent date on 11.07.1989 when a ranking list for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officers, Northern Region was again announced, O.P. Sahota and M.K. Kagra, placed in Sr. No. 5 and 6 respectively, had been shown as since promoted. The petitioner-Jay Shree Kaur made a representation to the Chairman on 31.07.1989 complaining of the fact that her name had been left out in the 1989 list, although she had been placed higher in the merit list in the previous year. The Secretary of the SC/ST Employees Welfare Association also had sent a representation to the Chairman pointing out to the anomaly that Khushal Singh and Jay Shree Kaur, who had higher ranking had not been promoted while the persons placed beneath them namely Sahota and Kagra had been promoted. A still further representation made on 12.09.1989 by Jay Shree Kaur elicited a response from the Deputy Manager, which recites as follows:

(3.) To the claim of the petitioners pointing out to the anomaly and demanding the correction of promoting personnel juniors to the petitioners, the respondents have filed a written statement trying to explain that the factors that went into reckoning for promotion were seniority, qualification, work record and interview. Out of 100 marks, 30 marks had been earmarked for seniority, 25 marks for qualification, 25 marks for work record and 20 marks for interview. A ranking list is said to have been prepared containing the names of the employees from the merit list equal to the number of vacancies in AAOs cadre plus 25% of contingency vacancies. A list had been prepared containing 21 names against 17 vacancies that existed. Sahota and Kagra had been placed at Sr. Nos. 18 and 20 in the list issued on 15.12.1987. There had been a backlog of 14 vacancies in the Western and Eastern Zone on the cadre of AAOs in the reserved category and in the year 1988, again an exercise for promotion carried out when few vacancies that had remained unfilled were filled up. In my view, it is a simple issue of when a merit list had been prepared in the year 1986 when only the petitioners stood for available consideration and in the subsequent merit list in the year 1988, the petitioners again stood above the names of Sahota and Kagra and they could not have been left out of consideration when in the year 1989 ultimately promotion had been offered only to Sahota and Kagra. The respondents have also indulged in meaningless gibberish that are incomprehensible, which I reckon to be deliberately to confuse the issues. There could be no promotion policy that can flout the elementary principle of persons higher in the merit list, could not have been sidelined and junior persons allowed to be promoted before the petitioners.