Lathrang Born Buam Vs Union of India and 23 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/25

¶2

GAHC010096232024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:7197

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2697/2024

¶6

LATHRANG BORN BUAM

¶7

SON OF LATE DR. P. WELSON BUAM, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781008.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 23 ORS UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSADMARG, NEW DELHI-110001, EMAIL- [email protected]

¶10

2:GENERAL INSURANCE PUBLIC SECTOR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENT HOUSE 3RD FLOOR A 25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI-110002 (THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE) [email protected]

¶11

3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 M. G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR [email protected] PH- 022-22708219.

¶12

Page No.# 2/25

¶13

4:ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (OICL) AT BLOCK-4 PLATE-A NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX KIDWAI NAGAR EAST NEW DELHI-110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH-011-33208485. 5:UNITED INDIAINSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (UIICL) 24 WHITESROAD CHENNAI-600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUMMANAGINGDIRECTOR) E-MAIL-CMD @ UIIC.CO.IN PH-044-28575200.

¶14

6:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NICL) PREMISES NO.18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD-81 NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL-CMD @ NIC.CO.IN PH- 033-22831705. 7:GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCH GATE MUMBAI-400020 INDIA. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH-022-22867000.

¶15

8:AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED (AICIL) PLATE B AND C 5TH FLOOR BLOCK 1 EAST KIDWAI NAGAR NEW DELHI-110023. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH- 011-24604444.

¶16

9:MS. KALAIVENI SUBBIAH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (UIICL)

¶17

Page No.# 3/25

¶18

24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI-600014. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH-044-28575200.

¶19

10:MS. CHANDRA S. IYER GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170 JAMSHED JI TATA ROAD CHURCH GATE MUMBAI-400020 INDIA. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 022-22867000. 11:MS. VENUGOPAL NALINI THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 M. G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- NALINI.VENUGOPAL@NEW INDIA.CO.IN PH- 022-22708219. 12:KHARBANDA LALIT KUMAR THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 M. G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH- 022-22708219. 13:MS. SAXENA ANJANA THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 M. G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH- 022-22708219.

¶20

14:SACHINDRA DATTA RAMSALVI GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170

¶21

Page No.# 4/25

¶22

JAMSHED JI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE MUMBAI-400020 INDIA. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 022-22867000.

¶23

15:SANJAY JOSHI UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (UIICL) 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI-600014. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH-044-28575200. 16:SANDIP SHANKAR RAO KARMAKAR GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170 JAMSHED JI TATA ROAD CHURCH GATE MUMBAI-400020 INDIA. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 022-22867000. 17:SANJAY LALLA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NICL) PREMISES NO.18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD-81 NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 033-22831705. 18:C.M. MANOHARAN UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (UIICL) 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI-600014. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH-044-28575200. 19:RAMAN K.V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 M. G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING

¶24

Page No.# 5/25

¶25

DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected] PH- 022-22708219. 20:RAJIV KR. GUPTA ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (OICL) AT BLOCK-4 PLATE-A NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX KIDWAI NAGAR EAST NEW DELHI-110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 011-33208485.

¶26

21:MS. VINITA JOSHI ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (OICL) AT BLOCK-4 PLATE-A NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX KIDWAI NAGAR EAST NEW DELHI-110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH-011-33208485.

¶27

22:AMANDEEP SINGH GROVER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NICL) PREMISES NO.18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD-81 NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 033-22831705

¶28

23:S. SIVASANKAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NICL) PREMISES NO.18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD-81 NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 033-22831705.

¶29

24:MS. MINI GEORGE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (NICL) PREMISES NO.18-0374

¶30

Page No.# 6/25

¶31

PLOT NO. CBD-81 NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR) [email protected] PH- 033-22831705

¶32

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P SHARMA, MR. S P SHARMA,MR. K N CHOUDHURY,MR. N SARMA,MR. A KASHYAP,MR. K AHMED,MS U SHARMA

¶33

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MD A RAHMAN(R-2),ISHANI SHOME(R-2),MR T R SEN(R-2),A W AMAN (R-2),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R-4,5,8),MR T R SEN(R-4,5,8),MR. SURAJIT DAS(R-4,5,8),MR A W AMAN(R-4,5,8),MR. SURAJIT DAS(R-6),MR S A BARBHUYAN(R-6),MR T R SEN(R-6),SAMIM RAHMAN(R-6),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R-6),A W AMAN(R-6),MR S A BARBHUYAN (R-3,7),MR T R SEN (R-3,7),SAMIM RAHMAN (R-3,7),MS SURAYA RAHMAN (R-3,7),A W AMAN (R-3,7)

¶34

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶35

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶36

Date : 03-06-2025

¶37

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Z. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2-8. None appears for respondents No. 9-24 (private respondents) despite notices are effected.

¶38

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the notice dated 16.01.2024, issued by the General Manager (P) & Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by which the Promotion Exercise 2024-25 to the cadre of Scale VII (General Manager) in General Insurers’ (Public Sector) Association of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GIPSA’ in short) was initiated and the consequential promotion notice dated 14.02.2024, issued by the Chairman, GIPSA, whereby sixteen (16) officers (private respondent Nos.9-24) have been promoted from the cadre of Scale VI to the cadre of Scale VII, in terms of Clause 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006. The petitioner has also put to challenge the letter dated 24.04.2024, passed by the Chief Executive, GIPSA, by which transfer and posting has been affected in respect of the above promoted officers.

¶39

Page No.# 7/25

¶40

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Scale I cadre in the year 1988 in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and then posted as the Branch Manager in the year 1994. He has been promoted to different higher Scale cadres from time to time and lastly in the Scale VI cadre, in which he is presently serving as Deputy General Manager.

¶41

4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its General Manager (P) & Director, issued a notice for the Promotion Exercise 2024-25, vide dated 16.01.2024, for filling up of sixteen (16) numbers of vacancies in the cadre of General Manager (Scale VII) in GIPSA Members Companies. Pursuant to the said notice of promotion, the petitioner being in Sl. No.44 in the overall seniority list and at Serial No. 4 in the zone of consideration, was considered for promotion along with other eligible officers. The respondent authorities had issued a notice on 19.01.2024, directing the officers who are in the zone of consideration to register themselves for the online process of the Screening Exercise, to be conducted by the ASCI, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the petitioner being in the zone of consideration, registered himself for the said promotion exercise. The schedule of the interview of the petitioner was fixed on 14.02.2024. Altogether 47 eligible candidates were called for final interview from the batch of 2021-22 and 2022-23, including the petitioner. Petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.4, as per the combined seniority list of all the six GIPSA companies. The promotion notice was published on 14.02.2024, by the Chairman, GIPSA, whereby as many as sixteen (16) officers of Scale VI cadre have been promoted to the cadre of Scale VII.

¶42

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that while he was eagerly waiting for his promotion, as he being one of the senior most Scale VI officers, whose name is placed at serial No.4 of the combined seniority list and having been denied him in the earlier proceedings for promotion to the cadre of Scale VII, surprisingly, found that he has not been promoted without any reason, whereas the candidates at Serial No. 17, 20, 23, 27 and 28 with just one year senior than the petitioner have been promoted. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted in all respects as there is no adverse record and also in terms of the seniority, and is one of the officers, who has an illustrious career serving the employer without any blemish from any corner. Having been denied of the promotion to the petitioner,

¶43

Page No.# 8/25

¶44

he has filed a representation by stating that despite having fulfilled all the yardsticks and parameters and the appraisal report of last five (5) years having been excellent with Grade A for promotion, he has not been unjustifiably promoted and therefore, the denial of promotion to the petitioner is illegal. However, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the representation as on date.

¶45

6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an extra-ordinary service record and always kept the respondents’ interest at the forefront during all his service tenure. The petitioner’s leaning towards the profitability as a main cornerstone is evident from the performance and results of the last five years i.e. 2019 to 2023, which is also performance period considered by the management for the present promotion exercise 2024-25. As per the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was called for screening and interview, taking into account the recommendation of the Screening Committee, wherein overall merit of the candidates, suitability, growth potential and length of service was taken into consideration. The five years appraisal reports of the petitioner was marked as outstanding with highly positive remarks and awarded Grade-A. Therefore, it is shocking that despite the petitioner’s having impeccable work records, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion.

¶46

7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, while referring to C lause 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy, 2006, submits that as per the said policy, the length of balance of service, qualification, service experience in various functional areas and seniority of the candidate including overall merit and suitability, growth potential and length of service are to be considered for the selection of the candidate's promotion from Scale VI to Scale VII. The petitioner being in the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM), Scale VI and having consistent outstanding Appraisal Reports ought to have been selected for promotion as per the aforesaid clause. He submits that as per Clause 13.1.1, the Promotion Committee shall act upon the assessment/recommendation of the Screening Committee for selecting the candidate. Therefore, given the fact that the petitioner is being recommended by the Screening Committee, the Promotion Committee should have considered the name of the petitioner for promotion. He submits that the respondent authorities have arbitrarily contradicted the Promotion Policy and by doing so, the petitioner has been denied his due

¶47

Page No.# 9/25

¶48

share of promotion. Therefore, he has been caused grave injustice and prejudice. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have not declared the number of vacancies for each of the four companies, before the interview and by such action, they have adopted a pick and choose policy which is arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice.

¶49

8. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had the opportunity to work across three different continents and specifically on multiple projects which have not only allowed the petitioner to demonstrate his dedication to the team's success but also showcase his ability to achieve the corporate objective of growth with profitability and the petitioner has always strived, worked and achieved his Company's vision and mission to grow and generate profits. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the method and criteria adopted by the respondent authorities is a policy of pick and choose, which overrules the statutory Promotion Policy, Guidelines and Procedures as laid down in the Promotion Policy, 2006. Therefore, it is necessary that the inaction of the respondent authorities while publishing the impugned promotional list dated 14.02.2024 deserves to be interfered with by this Court.

¶50

9. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the Performance Template for Regional In Charges issued by the respondent No.3 for promotion to the Scale VII, a Candidate requires 5 years data with experience whereas this criteria has not been complied in the instant case where it can be seen from the impugned Promotional list that Candidates with 1 year of normal experience in Scale VI Cadre were considered and even promoted to the Cadre of Scale VII. The petitioner had 2 years of completed Service experience in Scale VI as Regional/Operation Head. Thus, denying the rightful promotion of the petitioner is palpably illegal. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is the second time that the petitioner has been denied promotion.

¶51

10. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice as the respondent No.2 & 3 have ignored the various relevant clauses of the Promotion Policy and have promoted Junior Officers arbitrarily and to the disadvantage of the petitioner. The impugned notice has been issued in a manner which is prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner as officers junior to him have been promoted consecutively for 2 Promotion

¶52

Page No.# 10/25

¶53

Exercise years ignoring the outstanding rating with highly appreciative remarks and recommendations for immediate promotion made by the Reporting as well as the Accepting officers of the petitioner in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARS).

¶54

11. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the decision-making process of the Promotion Committee is opaque restricting any scope on part of the officers, viz., the petitioner herein, to assail the same. The decision of Promotion Committee is contrary to Clause 7.2 of the Broad Criteria of Promotion, which gives prominence to the merit and suitable candidates and the petitioner having been ignored vis-à-vis other junior officers despite having an outstanding rating with highly appreciative remarks and recommendations for immediate promotion made by reporting as well as accepting officers of the petitioner in his APARS. The impugned notice dated 14.02.2024, which excludes the name of the petitioner for promotion despite being in zone of consideration for all the 2 preceding Promotion Exercise years has resulted in closing all the possibilities of promotion as he is due to superannuate soon and the Promotion Policy debars him from applying any further.

¶55

12. He submits that the Promotion Exercise has been conducted in utter disregard to Clause 6.2 of Promotion Policy with regard to declaration of vacancies, which provides that Promotional Exercise for promotion to each Scale shall ordinarily be conducted for each financial year against the number of vacancies available, whereas, in contravention of the said Clause, promotional exercise has been conducted twice in the financial year 2023-2024 based on projected seniority list as on 01.04.2024, without assigning any reasons in the notice dated 16.01.2024. T he entire selection process shows misuse of discretion, lack of transparency as well accountability & use of extraneous considerations in not promoting the petitioner, whereby favored candidates have continuously been promoted for the past two years, in violation of rules & regulations of the Promotion Policy and against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶56

13. In support of his submissions, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

¶57

Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836 .

¶58

B.V. Sivaiah and others vs. K. Addanki Babu and others, reported in (1998)

¶59

Page No.# 11/25

¶60

6 SCC 720 .

¶61

14. On the other hand, Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 8, submits that the promotion exercise for the year 2024-25 was conducted by the respondents in accordance with the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 and there is no any violation of the said policy and rather the selection process has been conducted fairly.

¶62

15. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that no time schedule is fixed in the Promotion Policy for conducting the Promotion exercise under the Promotion Policy. It does not specify any time period to conclude the promotion exercise. Clause 5.1 of the Promotion Policy stipulates that the promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII shall be within the six GIPSA Member Companies on the basis of a single seniority list of all officers in Scale-VI in all the six companies taken together. Clause 6 provides that promotional vacancies for each financial year shall be determined based on the norms and guidelines determining the cadre strength having regards to organizational needs adopted by the company. Furthermore, the promotion exercise for each Scale shall, as a general practice, be conducted annually against the number of available vacancies. Clause 7.2 unequivocally stipulates that promotions to the Scale-VII Cadre shall be based solely on merit.

¶63

16. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that at the time of formulation and adoption of the Promotion Policy, a conscious and deliberate decision was taken that the promotion of officers to Scale VI Cadre and Scale VII Cadre are based on the sole criteria of merit as against the lower cadres or middle management cadres of officers where merit-cum-seniority is the criteria for promotion. The rationale behind this policy design is that leadership positions at the top echelons of management require candidates with proven performance, vision, managerial acumen, and decision-making capability. Promotion based solely on seniority may not serve the evolving needs of a highly competitive and dynamic insurance sector. Thus, promotions to Scale VI and VII serve as an incentive to high-performing officers while ensuring that only the most capable officers available in the zone of consideration lead the organization.

¶64

17. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that Paragraph 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy indicates the guiding parameters for the Promotion Committee for selection of candidates for

¶65

Page No.# 12/25

¶66

promotion. The Promotion Committee conducts an objective assessment based on these parameters in making the final determination. Notably, the Promotion Committee takes into consideration the performance appraisal records of the candidates from preceding 6 (Six) years as part of the promotion evaluation.

¶67

18. He submits that prior to the promotion exercise for the Financial Year 2010-11 in respect of Scale VI and Scale VII cadres, no weightage was assigned to seniority. It was only after the said promotion exercise that certain marks were allocated to seniority for promotions to these cadres. The respondent has consistently followed this uniform practice since 2011. The petitioner himself was promoted to Scale VI in Promotion Exercise 2021-22 under the same rules and regulations that govern the present promotion exercise.

¶68

19. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that for each of the parameters the Promotion Committee assigns marks, and candidates are awarded marks based on their performance against these parameters and the total marks obtained by each candidate are arrived at. The Candidates are then arranged in descending order of the total marks so obtained by them, and a merit list is accordingly prepared. From the top of the merit list, number of candidates equal to the number of available vacancies, are selected for promotion. Therefore, there are specific objective parameters that enables the Promotion Committee to evaluate the candidates for promotions to the Scale-VII cadre and there is no question of any challenge by the petitioner as the same norms were apply to all the empanelled officers without any biasness.

¶69

20. He submits that the petitioner was also considered by the Promotion Committee in the 2023-2024, which he never challenged, and 2024-2025 Promotion exercise along with other empanelled candidates in accordance with the said process as prescribed under the Promotion Policy. But as per the assessment under the said process and criteria, the petitioner could not qualify for promotion in competition to the other participating candidates in these Promotion exercises. The petitioner was called for interview before Promotion Committee, which was after considering the qualification of candidate by the Screening Committee. Thus, the petitioner's qualification was duly considered in the Promotion exercise for the year 2024-2025. He submits that the seniority alone does not guarantee promotion to the top management cadre of Scale VII in the Company as promotion to this cadre are based

¶70

Page No.# 13/25

¶71

on the sole criteria of merit as stipulated under Paragraph 7.2 of the Promotion Policy.

¶72

21. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that the decision not to allocate inter-se seniority marks for promotion to the Cadres of Scale VI and Scale VII within the same batch was a conscious and deliberate one. As per the Promotion Policy, inter-se seniority marks are considered only up to promotion to Scale V Cadre, wherein the criteria is Merit-cum-Seniority provided under clause 11.5.2 of the Promotion Policy. However, for promotions to Scale VI and VII Cadres, the policy stipulates that the criteria shall be primarily based on Merit, with only limited weightage accorded to seniority. Accordingly, no inter-se seniority marks are assigned for promotions to Scale VI and VII Cadres within the same batch. The petitioner, having been promoted earlier from Scale V to Scale VI under the same policy framework, has been a beneficiary of the merit-centric evaluation in prior promotion exercises. At no stage has the petitioner questioned the validity of the policy itself. There is no challenge to the promotion policy by the petitioner in the present writ petition as well. The grievance arises solely from the petitioner not being selected for promotion in the current exercise, even though his candidature was duly considered under the established norms.

¶73

22. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity can be attributed to the implementation of the Promotion Policy. The petitioner has failed to establish how the policy, or its application in his case, has resulted in any violation of his fundamental or legal rights. The Promotion Committee has followed the policy in letter and spirit, and the selection of candidates was made purely on merit, in accordance with the applicable rules. Two stages assessment of merit of the empanelled candidate, first by an independent outside Screening Committee, and then by a high level 7 member Promotion Committee comprising of the CMDs of the 6 Companies, all in the pay-scale equivalent to Additional Secretary to the Government of India, plus the Jt. Secretary (Insurance), Government of India, ensures that personal biases do not prejudice the assessment and selection of a candidate for promotion.

¶74

23. He submits that in any case, promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, much less as a fundamental right which could be enforced through a writ under Article 226 before this Hon'ble Court. At the most, the petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion along with other eligible candidates and compete with them on merits, which has been

¶75

Page No.# 14/25

¶76

availed by him for two years. Merely because the petitioner has failed to compete successfully in the promotional process, he cannot find fault with the process. On the other hand, it is trite law that the employee has right to be considered as a fundamental right enshrined in the principle of equality of opportunity but does not have a vested right for being necessarily promoted to the promotional post.

¶77

24. Mr. Z. Singh, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Court by claiming that officers junior to him have been promoted but failed to disclose that on the same norms the petitioner was promoted to Scale-VI Cadre. Further, the petitioner also not disclosed that some officers senior to him have also not been promoted in the promotion Exercise under challenge, only because to hide the fact that the respondents Company followed the same standard and norms applicable to the empanelled candidates. It is relevant to mention that during the argument before this Hon'ble Court on 08.05.2025, Petitioner had argued that petitioner has more balance of service than the officers at Serial Nos. 17, 20, 23, 27 and 28 which have less than 1 year of balance of service. He submits that those officers were not in the list of Zone of Consideration. This clearly evident that the petitioner is attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Court to get a promotion which he was not entitled as per the rules and norms of the Promotion Policy. Therefore, he submits that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶78

25. In support of his submissions, Mr. Z. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance largely on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

¶79

Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Arvind Rai and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195.

¶80

Ravi Kumar Dhansukhlal Mehta & Anr. VS. High Court of Gujarat & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 432 of 2023.

¶81

Bihar State Electricity Board and Others VS. Dharamdeo Das, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 .

¶82

H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Roop Lal & Ors., in LPA No.650 of 2011.

¶83

Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517.

¶84

Page No.# 15/25

¶85

6. K. Samantaray Vs. National Co. Ltd. Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2003 SCR 669 Supp(3) / SCR 669.

¶86

26. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, including the record of proceedings of Promotion Committee.

¶87

27. The respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. issued a notice vide dated 16.01.2024, through its General Manager (P) & Director, initiating the Promotion Exercise 2024-25, for promotion to the cadre of Scale VII (General Manager) in GIPSA Members Companies, for filling up of sixteen (16) numbers of vacancies, in terms of the Clause 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006. Altogether 47 candidates including the petitioner who are under the zone of consideration have been allowed to register their names for the said proceedings for promotion to the cadre of Scale VII, and thereafter, the respondent authorities have undertaken the proceedings for promotion.

¶88

28. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities have published the notice of promotion vide dated 14.02.2024, whereby 16 officers have been selected and promoted from the cadre of Scale VI to Scale VII, in the GIPSA member companies. However, the name of the petitioner has not been included. In other words, the petitioner has not been promoted.

¶89

29. The promotion of the Officers in the respective scales are regulated by the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006. The relevant clauses are referred and considered (infra).

¶90

30. Clause 5.1 stipulates that the promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII shall be within the six GIPSA Member Companies on the basis of a single seniority list of all officers in Scale-VI in all the six companies taken together. Clause 5.1 is reproduced herein below:

¶91

"5.1 Promotions of officers from Scale-V to Scale-VI and from Scale-VI to Scale-VII shall be within the Six GIPSA Member Companies taken together. For this purpose, all officers in ScaleV In all the Six companies taken together shall be ranked in a single seniority list to be maintained by GIPSA. Similarly, a single seniority list of all officers in Scale-VI in all the Six

¶92

Page No.# 16/25

¶93

companies taken together shall also be maintained by GIPSA.

¶94

31. Clause 6 provides as under:-

¶95

"6. Determination of vacancies:

¶96

6.1 Promotional vacancies for every financial year shall be determined on the basis of the norms/guidelines adopted by the Company for determining the cadre strength in each Scale from time to time having regard to the organizational needs.

¶97

6.2 Promotional Exercise for promotion to each Scale shall ordinarily be conducted for each financial year against the number of vacancies available:

¶98

Provided however, in the event of sufficient number of vacancies not being available in any particular scale/year, it may not be necessary to conduct the promotional exercise for that particular scale/year."

¶99

32. Clause 7.2 stipulates that promotions to the Scale-VII Cadre shall be based solely on merit which is reproduced herein below:

¶100

"7.2 While promotions to Scale-VI and Scale-VII shall be based on the sole criterion of merit, promotions upto Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for measuring merit and seniority."

¶101

33. Clause 8.1 prescribes which is reproduced herein below:

¶102

"8.1 For empanelment for consideration of promotion to the cadres of Scale-VI & Scale-VII, an officer should have completed a minimum two full years of continuous service in the existing cadre (and should have minimum two full years of balance service remaining before attaining the age of superannuation), subject to the provisions of Para 17..."

¶103

34. Clause 9.1 of the Promotion Policy stipulates that candidates within the Zone of Consideration for promotion shall be interviewed by a Screening Committee comprising four to five external experts from relevant fields, including but not limited to Management, Human Resources, Organizational Behaviour, Public Administration, Economics and Psychology. The committee shall assess candidates based on various parameters such as conceptual Level / vision, depth & range of overview of the industry / economic, planning ability, decisionmaking ability, management traits acumen, positive attitude, problem-solving ability including conflict resolution abilities, and overall leadership ability etc. before submitting its recommendations to the Promotion Committee.

¶104

Page No.# 17/25

¶105

35. Clause 12.1 stipulates that the Promotion Committee shall be composed of the Chairmancum-Managing Directors (CMDs) of GIPSA Member Companies, along with a nominee appointed by the Government of India.

¶106

36. Clause 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy provides which is reproduced here-in-below:

¶107

"13.1.1 Eligible officers, after being interviewed by the Screening Committee, as per para 9.1, shall appear for an interview by the Promotion Committee. The Promotion Committee shall, after taking into account the assessment recommendations of the Screening Committee, overall merit, suitability, growth potential, length of balance service, qualifications, service experience in various functional areas and seniority of the candidates, as may be assessed from the performance appraisal records as well as personal interview, prepare a list of officers selected for promotion, The list shall be so prepared as to maintain the inter-se seniority of the concerned officers in the existing cadres. Such selection of officers for promotion by the Committee shall be final. The list shall be to the extent of the vacancies available for the year concerned."

¶108

37. On a conjoint reading of the above provisions reflects that the promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII shall be within the six GIPSA Member Companies on the basis of a single seniority list of all officers in Scale-VI in all the six companies taken together. Promotion shall be based on the sole criterion of merit. Candidates within the zone of consideration for promotion shall be interviewed by a Screening Committee comprising four to five external experts from relevant fields, including but not limited to Management, Human Resources, Organizational Behaviour, Public Administration, Economics and Psychology. The committee shall assess candidates based on various parameters such as conceptual Level/vision, depth & range of overview of the industry/economic, planning ability, decisionmaking ability, management traits acumen, positive attitude, problem-solving ability including conflict resolution abilities, and overall leadership ability etc. before submitting its recommendation to the Promotion Committee.

¶109

38. On bare reading of clause 13.1.1 clearly reflects that an eligible candidate, after being interviewed by the Screening Committee, would appear before the Promotion Committee for interview. The Promotion Committee shall after taking in to account the assessment/recommendation of the Screening Committee, overall merit, suitability, growth

¶110

Page No.# 18/25

¶111

potential, length of balance service, qualification, service experience in various functional areas and seniority of the candidates, as may be assessed from the performance appraisal records as well as personal interview, prepare a list of candidates selected for promotion. Thus, in my view while seniority would be a factor entitling a candidate to fall in the zone of consideration, but once so empanelled, selection for promotion would be based on merit as the Promotion policy shows that it provides for a structured, and merit-oriented framework for career advancement, aimed at rewarding performance, fostering leadership, and cultivating a professional culture of excellence, accountability, and commitment, while seniority is duly respected.

¶112

39. Record reveals that the promotion exercise has been undertaken taking into consideration all the parameters for selection of candidates for promotion from cadre of scale VI to scale VII. Altogether 47 Scale VI Officers in the zone of consideration were screened and interviewed. The Promotion Committee appears have conducted an objective assessment based on all the above parameters in determining the final selection as the performance appraisal records of the candidates of preceding 6 (Six) years as part of the promotion evaluation and allotted marks on work record, external assessment, seniority and interview have been considered. It is seen that work record constitutes of major contribution, institution building, health, integrity, general assessment, outstanding work and fitness. It also reveals that Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad was engaged by the respondents to conduct the Screening of the empanelled officers.

¶113

40. Record further reveals that each of the parameters were assigned marks and the candidates are awarded marks based on their performance against these parameters and the total marks obtained by each candidate were arrived at and the selection and promotion has been effected. Thus, an objective assessment on all the parameters that enables the Promotion Committee to evaluate the candidates for promotions to the Scale VII cadre by applying the same norms to all the eligible Scale VI officers appears to have been undertaken equally in terms of the promotion policy.

¶114

41. In the course of hearing, having found that equal marks have been awarded to the candidates on seniority from Serial Nos.4 to 17 of the final marksheet, this Court posed a query to the respondents as to how equal marks were awarded to those candidates when the

¶115

Page No.# 19/25

¶116

petitioner is senior to other candidates at serial no. 5 to 17, to which the respondents have submitted that equal marks awarded to empanelled candidates from Serial Nos. 4 to 17 in the final promotion marksheet i.e., the petitioner and his other batchmates from Scale VI Cadre, stem from the fact that all of them were promoted to Scale VI in the same year under the same promotion exercise and hence, possess identical tenure in that scale which determines their seniority equivalence and therefore entitles them to equal marks for seniority. This court finds such submission justified as the final determination for promotion is based on a comparative merit and seniority on an objective assessment on all the parameters in terms of the promotion policy.

¶117

42. Regard being had to the averment made in paragraph 40 of affidavit-in-opposition, by the respondent to the effect that the promotion at such higher level are subjective in nature given the profile and accomplishment of the candidates coupled with the requirement of company, I find that same would be inconsequential as the promotion exercise undertaken by the respondents as revealed from the record appears to have made on objective criteria in accordance with the promotion policy for the officers.

¶118

43. Having regard to the contention of non compliance of requirement of 5 years data with experience as per the Performance Template for Regional In Charges for promotion to the Scale VII a candidate requires, the candidates with 1 year of normal experience in Scale VI Cadre were considered and even promoted, I am of the view that since the petitioner he himself had 2 years of completed service experience in Scale VI only, same would be inconsequential as it would not have caused any prejudice to the petitioner.

¶119

44. The contention of the petitioner that the promotion exercise has been conducted in utter disregard to Clause 6.2 of Promotion Policy with regard to declaration of vacancies, which provides that promotion exercise for promotion to each Scale shall ordinarily be conducted for each financial year against the number of vacancies available, whereas, in contravention of the said Clause, promotional exercise has been conducted twice in the financial year 2023-2024 based on projected seniority list as on 01.04.2024, without assigning any reasons in the notice dated 16.01.2024, is unacceptable as the promotion exercises as per the Records have been conducted for 2023-24 and 2024-25. More so, the petitioner has participated in the said promotional exercises without any demur and having been found the

¶120

Page No.# 20/25

¶121

result of such exercises not palatable to him, same cannot be permitted to agitate.

¶122

45. It is a well settled principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In the present case, it is the duty of the promotion committee to make overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately by adopting the same standard, yardsticks and norms. The respondent authorities appear to have proceeded in a fair manner by applying the same yardsticks and norms to all candidates and thus, no procedural infirmity or arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the promotion committee is discerned.

¶123

46. In K. Samantaray (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced here-in-below:

¶124

"9. As the figurative data extracted from the policy goes to show the service structure is like a pyramid. The higher one goes in the ladder of promotional posts remarkably the seniority loses importance, and merit gets primacy.

¶125

10. In Syndicate Bank case (supra) observations in para 14 throw considerable light on the controversy. The third mode (apart from seniority-cum-merit and merit-cumseniority modes) has been recognized. It has been described as a "hybrid mode of promotion". In other words, there is a third category of cases where seniority is duly respected and merit is appropriately recognized.

¶126

11. While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is always open to the employer to specify area and parameter of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately so long as policy is not colourable exercise of power, nor has the effect of violating of any statutory scope of interference and other relatable matters. The decision in B. V. Sivaiah case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and in law. That was a case where statutory rules governed the field. This Court, inter alia, held that fixing terms which are at variance with the statutory rules is impermissible. In the case at hand, prior to the formulation of policy in February, 1990, there were no codified prescriptions. It was the stand of the respondent-employer that prior to the formulation of the policy, certain guidelines existed and the objectives of the policy were to rationalize and codify the existing guidelines relating to promotions within officers cadre. There is no statutory rule operating. It is for the employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion, the same pertaining really to the area of policy making. It was, therefore,

¶127

Page No.# 21/25

¶128

permissible for the respondent to have their own criteria for adjudging claims on the principle of seniority-cum-merit giving primacy to merit as well, depending upon the class, category and nature of posts in the hierarchy of administration and the requirements of efficiency for such posts.

¶129

12. Reading of the whole policy reveals that stress was not on seniority alone and weightage was sought to be imposed on merit and other relevant aspects also. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to go into the question of fence-sitting stand adopted by the appellant and non-impleadment of affected persons. There is no scope for interference in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy."

¶130

47. In Ajay Kumar Shukla (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:

¶131

"4. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules".

¶132

"27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta and followed in Jagdish Lal and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guarantee to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta right from 1950."

¶133

48. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamdeo Das (supra) has held as under:

¶134

"22. The spirit behind elevating the right for being considered for promotion to a fundamental right is enshrined in the principle of "equality of opportunity" in relation to matters of employment and appointment to a position under the State. Once employed, the employees are entitled for being considered for promotion to the next higher post subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria, as per the applicable rules. Failure to consider an employee for promotion even after satisfying the eligibility criteria would violate her fundamental right. However, a clear distinction has been drawn between the stage of considering an employee for being promoted to taking the next step of recognizing the said right as a vested right for promotion. That is where the line has to be drawn. Stated differently, a right to be considered for promotion being a facet of the right to equal opportunity in employment and appointment, would have to be treated as a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India but such a right cannot translate into a vested right of the employee for being

¶135

Page No.# 22/25

¶136

necessarily promoted to the promotional post, unless the rules expressly provide for such a situation."

¶137

49. The case laws relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, i.e. Mohan Lal Capoor (Supra), pertains to select lists for promotion which are to be revised and reviewed every year in the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service under Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and identical Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which provides that the selection for inclusion in the list for promotion shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority. The petitioners were excluded from the select lists. In the context of regulation 5 (2) of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:

¶138

“ 20. It is true that, where merit, which is difficult to judge, is laid down as the sole test for promotion, the powers of selection become wider, and, they can be abused with less difficulty. But, the machinery provided for preparation of select lists for promotion to All India Services, so as to ensure impartiality, cannot be assumed to so operate as to produce unjust results. The wider the powers entrusted to an administrative authority, the more should be the consciousness of responsibility on its part for their due discharge fairly and impartially. The presumption is that the authority concerned will discharge its obligations with full realization of its implications and honestly. We have, however, to determine here whether the, Selection Committee and the Union Public Service Commission performed their functions on a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and not whether they acted honestly about which we entertain no doubt whatsoever.

¶139

21. The Division Bench had held "merit and suitability" to be a sort of an admission test for a place on the select list just as the, conditions for eligibility laid down in Regulation 4 operated as test operating at the out-set for inclusion in the list of eligible persons. Furthermore, it held that, even in judging "merit", seniority was the most important consideration in cases of promotion and that this followed from the requirement of Regulation 5 (2) that it be given due regard. it held that, after satisfying a minimum standard of individual merit and suitability for inclusion in the list, comparable to pass marks at an examination, in which seniority played the dominant role, seniority also determined the order on the list according to which the officers selected were to be promoted to the All India Services. it referred to Regulation 5 (3), which requires the arrangement of selected officers "in order of seniority in the State Civil Service" to justify its interpretation. Thus, it came to the conclusion that seniority was really the dominant or governing factor in determining who should be placed on the, select list as

¶140

Page No.# 23/25

¶141

well as the order in which they were to be appointed. Although Regulation 5 (2), considered by itself, does not lead to this conclusion, Regulation 5(3) would, perhaps to some extent, support the reasoning of the Division Bench. if a comparative test of merit is to be applied throughout to all candidates, by comparing each with all the others, at every stage, it should, logically, determine not only selections but also positions of officers on the list, just as the position of each examinee on, a written test is determined by the total number of marks secured by him as compared with marks secured by other candidates. If that was to be the logically applied test throughout, Regulation 5(3) laying down that names on the list must be arranged in the order of seniority in their State Service, could not have been there. This Regulation suggests that merit ordinarily operates only at the stage of applying an "inclusion" test. But, Regulation 5(3) does not support the further conclusion reached by the Division Bench that a minimum standard of merit is sufficient as a test for inclusion on the list and the rest is regulated by seniority. There is no doubt that, after applying the properly applicable inclusion test for a place on the list, the exact place in the select list is determined by seniority, as laid down by Regulation 5(3), subject to claims of exceptional merit.

¶142

22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the "entrance" or "inclusion" test, for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor. A simple reading of. the Regulation 5 (2) clearly indicates this to be the correct view. The required number has thus to be selected by a comparison of merits of all the eligible candidates of each year. But, in making this selection, seniority must play its due role. Seniority would, however, only be one of the several factors affecting assessment of merit as comparative experience in service, should be. There could be a certain number of in marks allotted, for purposes of facilitating evaluation, to each year of experience, gained in the, service. When the required number for the list is thus chosen, the respective roles of seniority and exceptional merit would be governed by Regulation 5(3). This seems to be the correct interpretation of rules as they stand”_ .

¶143

50. In B.V. Sivaiah (Supra), while holding that principle of “merit-cum-seniority” lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶144

“ 9. The principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In the context of Rule 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations,

¶145

Page No.# 24/25

¶146

1955 which prescribed that "selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority" Mathew. J. in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., 1974 (1) SCR 797, has said:-

¶147

"(F)or inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor, or if it is not fairly possible to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible candidates had come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt the scale." [p.801] Similarly, Beg J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) has said :-

¶148

"22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the "entrance" or "inclusion" test for a place on the select list, is competitive ad comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor."

¶149

10. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. In state of Mysore & Anr. v. Syed Mahmood & Ors., 1968 (3) SCR 363, while considering Rule 493)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, this Court has observed that the rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of "seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion". It was pointed out that where the promotion is based on seniority- cum-merit the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him maybe promoted.”

¶150

51. The above case laws relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are well settled principle of law that the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal . Thus, in my view, same would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶151

52. Reverting back to the present case, the merit and seniority of the petitioner as per the

¶152

Page No.# 25/25

¶153

promotion policy appears to have been assessed on a comparative and relative basis with objective criteria on all the parameters vis-à-vis other eligible officers of Scale VI in the promotion exercise in which he participated. However, the petitioner could not make it within 16 selected officers. Thus, no illegality much less unfairness is discerned as the respondents after taking into account the assessment recommendation of the Screening Committee, overall merit, suitability, growth potential, length of balance service, qualifications, service experience in various functional areas and seniority of the candidates and have assessed from the performance appraisal records as well as personal interview, prepared a list of officers selected for promotion and issued the notice of promotion promoting 16 Scale VI Officers to Scale VII.

¶154

53. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, I am of the considered view that there is no procedural infirmity or illegality in the promotion exercise on the part of respondent authorities and thus, no interference is warranted to the notice dated 16.01.2024, issued by the General Manager (P) & Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the consequential promotion notice dated 14.02.2024, issued by the Chairman, GIPSA, whereby sixteen (16) officers (private respondent Nos.9-24) have been promoted from the cadre of Scale VI to the cadre of Scale VII.

¶155

54. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Cost(s) made easy.

¶156

JUDGE

¶157

Comparing Assistant

Lathrang Born Buam v. Union of India and 23 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lathrang Born Buam v. Union of India and 23 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purnima Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rukmini Roy Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdus Sabur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

General Insurance Public Sector Association Vs Lathrang Born Buam and Ors.

Jaydeep Nandi Vs Oil India Limited and 4 Ors.

Nagendra Lal Choudhury Vs United Commercial Bank and 4 Ors.