AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The Respondents Company issued notice dated 17.1.2012 expressing its desire to promote its existing employees of the company to the post of Junior Officer Grade (E-1 Grade), on the basis of competitive examination through written test and viva voce test. There were 14 posts, which were sought to be filled up in accordance with the roster. These petitioners also made applications claiming for their selections, for which, they have attended for the competitive examinations, written test and viva voce test. The conditions stipulated in the Notification are that eligibility must be working in the Company as a Clerk, Steno-Typist Grade-I and above in Ministerial Staff of any departments of the company and must have completed minimum 10 years of service in their respective discipline as on 17/01/2012.
The grounds urged by the petitioners are that the Respondent Company had denied the chance of promotion to these petitioners without assigning any reason. Though they have secured required marks for their promotion, but for the reasons best known to the Company, they have been denied. It is also taken as a ground that the selected candidates are not eligible for the promotion, as they have no continuous service in the lower post to consider them for the promotion. Their selection is quite contrary to the Rules of Promotions condition No. 3.4, which contemplates that ''an employee may be considered for selection to a higher posts on promotion, provided he is confirmed in the lower post and has rendered a continuous service of 3 years''. By referring the seniority list as on 1.10.2011 in the cadre of ministerial staff, one Potaraj whose name is appearing at Sl. No. 35 and Reg. No. 4111, in which, at the relevant columns, it is referred that the date of present promotion as on 1.4.2009. Similarly, it is of one Linganna, whose name is appearing at Sl. No. 50 and Reg. No. 4830 and one Basanna Gouda whose name is appearing at Sl. No. 51 Reg. No. 4523 and some of the other persons, whose present promotions to the feeder cadre was in the year 2009. Hence, they have not completed 3 years of continuous service and some irregularities have been crept in the promotion list. However, for consideration of the promotion to these petitioners, similar benefits have not been extended to them. Hence, the action of the Respondent is contrary and colourable exercise of powers.
The learned counsel of Respondents company submits that the petitioners were not selected, since they have obtained lesser marks to that of selected candidates. In the viva voce test, they have secured only 33, 30 and 35 marks respectively and in the written test, they have secured 14, 18 and 16 respectively. In respect of qualifying service for the promotions, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that 10 years of service in the respective discipline has been considered with reference to the discipline of Clerk/Steno Typist Grade-I. The discipline has not been understood by the Company in respect of promotion and the selected candidates were also given promotion to the present cadre in the year 2009.
I have heard both sides.
The 10 years of service in the respective discipline has not been explained and there is no definition available in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. However, when the promotion is to be considered, it depends on the qualifying service in the Feeder Cadre. If Respective disciplines is to be understood and referable to feeder cadre, then including the respondents, who got promotion have not completed 10 years of service as per Regulations 3.4. The minimum service to be rendered from feeder cadre is 3 years. Even that qualifying service has not been completed by the respondents. Irrespective of as to whether they have completed 3 years in feeder cadre or 10 years in the discipline, the selection have been made for promotion, as if the selection is a direct recruitment. At the most, even if it is considered as in service selection for the promotion, then also the minimum qualifying service in the discipline or in the feeder cadre, it is mandatory one. The submission of the respondents to the effect that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service in the respective discipline, if that is taken into consideration, the same thing applies to the some of the respondents also. The submission of the Respondents that petitioners have secured lesser marks in the written statement, competitive test and viva voce, whereas the selected candidates have secured more marks. The written test and viva voce test is to be conducted on the basis of the prescribed materials available to the examinations. In the merit assessment performance which was scheduled on 5.2.2012 and marks have been awarded in the viva voce and also marks allotted to the petitioners and all these things mentioned in the cadre and recruitment rules.
These anomalies and inconsistency has not been considered by issuing any suitable endorsement or reply by the respondent company. Under these circumstances, I pass the following :
"The Respondent Company is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the qualifying service in respective department of 10 years or qualifying service in the feeder cadre of 3 years and if they found eligible, they have to be issued promotion order.
While reconsidering the case of the petitioners, the respondent company is to take care of all these discussions made hitherto and pass appropriate orders and time for compliance is to 3 months."