AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, J.—This appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6.05.2003 passed in W.P.(S) No.
3293 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners appellants.
The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order dated 11.6.1999 passed by the Managing Director,
Bokaro Steel Plant rejecting the representation of the appellants wherein they claimed promotion to the post of Executive Grade from the date
juniors to them in service i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the claim of the writ petitioners (appellants)
that juniors to them have been promoted to higher post and were given accelerated promotion, is misconceived and there has been no
discrimination whatsoever.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Appellants'' case is that they are possessing diploma in Mechanical Engineering. In 1972 they
were selected and appointed as Construction Supervisors, grade III and joined in Bokaro Steel Plant. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, having similar
qualification and diploma in Mechanical Engineering, were alleged to have been subsequently appointed as Construction Supervisors, grade III in
the year, 1972 and respondent No. 7, though matriculate, was appointed in grade I on 9.10.1975 in Bhawnathpur Mines, Bokaro Steel Limited.
In course of service the appellants were transferred from main Bokaro Steel Plant to Bhawnathpur Lime Stone. Mines along with others. Again
they were transferred back to main Bokaro Steel Plant and posted in Project Division in 1999. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were
given promotion including accelerated promotion in complete disregard to the seniority position of the appellants. In 1972 interview was called for
in Executive Grade (E-1) through Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioners-appellants were not considered fit for promotion
although juniors to them were promoted in Executive grade. It was stated by the writ petitioners that they were never considered for promotion to
E-1 grade by the D.P.C. In 1988 a new selection policy was introduced for selection for the post of Executive cadre through interview by the
DPC based on the qualification. It was alleged that the appellants-writ petitioners have been agitating the matter before the authorities by filing
repeated representations. However, the representations of the appellants were considered but the same were wrongly rejected by the authorities
concerned.
We have heard Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad who has appeared as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners and also
Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also considered the order by which the representation made
by the appellants has been rejected which was impugned in the writ petition.
It appears that the appellants earlier moved this Court for the same relief by filing CWJC No. 1075/1992 which was disposed of on 19.2.99
and, thereafter, MJC case being No. 356/99 was also filed for non-compliance of the order. It appears that subsequently show cause was filed
along with the order passed by the Managing Director, after considering the representation of the petitioners.
Admittedly the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had the same basic qualification at the time of joining the Company. They joined on
various dates in grade VI. However, respondent No. 3 joined in Project Division while respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined in the work division
Respondent No. 7 joined in QMQ division, Each division has their own line of promotion. In the respondent-company there are two sources of
selection and promotion i.e. (i) on the basis of seniority in the non-executive cadre based on their vacancies and appraisal of reports, length of
service etc and another (ii) through internal circular wherein requisite qualification and experience are prescribed.
The learned Single Judge has noticed all these facts Admittedly the appellants availed the chance of appointment against internal circular issued
on 4.10.1977 but they could not qualify in the final selection. After the new policy was introduced by the respondent-company in 1988 the
petitioners were again interviewed on several occasions and they were not found suitable by the respective DPCs-for promotion to Executive
cadre. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not allowed to participate in the selection process. The learned Single Judge has
considered all these aspects of the matter and passed a reasoned judgment.
In the case of Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, the Supreme Court held that the principle of merit-cum- seniority is an
approved method of selection and that promotion to selection grade post as not automatic on the basis of ranking in the gradation list. The
promotion is primarily based on merit and not on seniority alone. Promotion to Executive post is a selective post and, therefore, one cannot claim
promotion to selection post as a matter of right or merely on seniority basis.
In the instant case, as noticed above, promotion in L-7 and above grades in non-Executive cadre is based on vacancy on higher grade and such
promotion is available in one''s own line of promotion (LOPs). Admittedly against the internal circular dated 4.10.77 for the post of Executive
cadre the petitioners along with others applied out they could not qualify for the final selection. In the subsequent circular issued for appointment on
the post of Executive cadre, the petitioners did not apply. Some of the respondents applied and they were selected for promotion. It has not been
disputed by the petitioners-appellants that in terms of the new Promotion Policy the petitioners'' case was considered but they were not found fit
for promotion to Executive grade.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any error in the impugned order. This appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.