AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 1998.
The facts in W.P.No. 6440 of 1998 are stated for purposes of understanding the nature of the point involved. Petitioners were recruited as Assistants in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter 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 die petitioners were shown at Sl. 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 Heads; (2) Stenographers; (3) Assistants and all other employees, who arc 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 (hereinafter 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 contended 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 the L.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 eligible 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.
While in W.P. No. 6440 of 1998 of the petitioners were not considered for promotion to the category of A.A.O (Admn) in W.P.No. 11903 of 1988 the sole petitioner therein claimed that he was not entitled to be considered for promotion even to the post of A.A.O. (Programmer). He was not considered even for that post of A.A.O. and hence a separate petition was filed by him challenging the respondents action.
The short question in both the writ petitions is whether the petitioners were eligible for being considered for promotional post of A.A.O ? It has already been stated that the earlier regulations governing the promotion were of 1976. They were known as Life Insurance Corporation Promotion Regulations 1976. They have been replaced by Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-ID and Class-IV Employees Promotional Rules, 1987 (for short the ''1987 Promotional Rules''). 1987 Promotional Rules specifically state that the Regulations of 1976 have been superseded. The Regulations of 1976 as well as the Rules of 1987 have been admittedly issued under the power conferred u/s 48 read with Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 (Act 31 of 1956)
All the seven petitioners were working as Section Heads and H.G.As. as shown in the chart below :
SI.No. Name of the Employee Date of taking charge as Section Head Date of taking charge as HGA
Sri
N. Rajamouli 31-5-1982 31-5-1983
K. Seshagiri 31-3-1982 31-3-1983
A.S. Raju 30-1-1982 31-1-1983
G. SudhakarBabu 1-2-982 1-2-1983
B. Pullaiah 4-2-1982 1-2-1983
D. Gumnatham 1-6-1982 1-6-1983
G. RajaRao 31-1-1982 31-1-1983
The notification for consideration of promotions in respect of the post which are subject-matter of this writ petition was issued on 2-12-1987 in terms of Rule 7 (2) of the Promotion Rules, 1987. Two separate notifications on the same date were issued one for consideration to the post of A.A.O (Personal Assistant), Assistant Administrative Officer and, the Mobile Van Officer (Assistant Administrative Officer), and the second notification was for considering promotion to the category of A.A.O (Programmers). It was made clear in the said notifications that the seniority and qualifications for determining the eligibility would be reckoned as on 1-12-1987. This was according to the rules themselves. In 1987 Promotional Rules vide Rule 7 (2) state that the conditions, eligibility including seniority and qualifications shall be reckoned as on the first day of the month in which the notification was issued for promotion. It is in accordance with this rule that the relevant date for working out eligibility was 1st December, 1987. Admittedly one of the conditions of the eligibility is that the concerned person must have five years of service in the scale of Higher Grade Assistant (H.G.A..) or six years in the scale of Section Head or combined service of six years in the scale of Higher Grade Assistant (H.G. A) and/or as Section Head. It cannot be disputed in the circumstances that unless the petitioners had to their credit six years service as Section Heads or five years service as H.G.A. as on 1-12-1987, they did not become eligible for being considered to the post which was notified on 2-12-1987.
The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were promoted to the category of H.G.A. by a notification dated 27-9-1982. It is argued that the period of five years of service should be reckoned from date of issuance of notification under which the petitioners were brought to the category of H.G.A. The date on which each of the petitioners started working as H.G.A. cannot be considered as the material date for reckoning the seniority. For buttressing such contention, the petitioners'' learned Counsel relies on notification for promotion issued by the L.I.C on 1-2-1979 vide Circular No. 3589/ASP/79. That was a circular regarding the qualification of conditions of eligibility under the Regulations of 1976. Clause 4 of the said Circular is as follows :
"The promotion of such a candidate will actually come into effect only from the date on which he takes charge of the post. However, in the case of promotions to the cadre of A.A.O the seniority of such candidates will be reckoned from the date of publication of the Ranking List."
It is argued on basis of this clarification that petitioners'' seniority should be reckoned from the date on which the panel of Assistant to be promoted to the category of H.G.A. was prepared i.e. on 27-9-1982. The argument cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In the first place the said clarification was obviously in respect of 1976 Promotion Regulations. The said Regulations have been superseded by the 1987 Promotion Rules wholly. The clarification which was in respect of Regulations of 1976 will therefore, not be of any value for construing the Rules of 1987. The Promotion Rules of 1987 do not provide for any such provision which would enable the petitioners to contend that their seniority in the post of H.G.A. should be reckoned from the date of preparation of panel and not from the date on which they actually commenced work or took charge of the post of H.G.A.
The more substantial reason, in my view, is that even the clarification relied upon by the petitioners does not really help their case. The clarification has been extracted already by me. the proper and true reading of the said clarification will show that it is only in respect of the persons brought to the cadre of A.A.O. that the seniority of the candidates is to be reckoned from the date of preparation of ranking list. Meaning thereby that once a person is brought in the list of A.A.O. the seniority in the category of A.A.O. will be according to his placement in the said ranking list. Even if a person at ranking No. 1 in the said ranking list takes charge of the post of A.A.O. after the persons say at SI.Nos. 6, 7, 8 have taken the charge, the seniority of the person at Sl.No. 1 in the category of A.A.O. will not be effected. Thus the clarification only preserves the seniority of the persons only after they appear in the select list of A.A.O. The clarification has nothing to do with case of the present type. The first part of the clarification clearly shows that the promotion shall actually come into effect, in all other cases, only from the date on which persons takes charge of the post. Therefore, in the category of H.G. A. the promotion of petitioners actually came into effect only on the date on which the respective petitioners took the charge as H.G.A. and not on the date on which the select list of H.G.As was prepared. The contention that the clarification would help the petitioners to urge that their seniority should be construed in the category of H.G.A. from the date of preparation of select list is not supported by the clarification at all.
This being the true position, there is hardly any case in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners took charge as H.G.As. between 31-1-1983 to 1-6-1983 on various dates. It will thus be seen that on 1-12-1987 none of the petitioners had completed five years of service as H.G.A., if the service is properly reckoned from the date on which the receipt of the petitioners took charge of the post of H.G.A. It cannot be disputed that from the date of taking charge as Section Head, none of the petitioners had completed six years of service as on 1-12-1987. Thus looked at from any angle the petitioners were not eligible to be considered for the post of A.A.O. in both the writ petitions. This being the true position, the communication sent by the L.I.C. on 7-7-1988 to the petitioners that the petitioners'' case cannot be considered for promotion as the petitioners did not satisfy the condition of eligibility prescribed under Promotion Rules of 1987 for promotion to the category of A.A.O. cannot be challenged. Both the writ petitions are meritless and are dismissed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.