S. Manik vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Administrative Officer with effect from the year 2001 instead of 05.05.2010 which has been subsequently granted to the petitioner as per Annexure-L to the petition.

The petitioner is employed in the respondent-Corporation and had secured employment on 01.01.1984. He belongs to Gonda caste and therefore, he is classified as Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer on 13.09.1996. He claims that he has thereafter discharged his work diligently to the satisfaction of his superior and as such, he was entitled to be promoted in the year 2001 when he had become eligible for promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such eligibility the petitioner has been denied the promotion to the post of Administrative Officer time and again till the year 2010 when it was ultimately accorded by the letter dated 05.05.2010.

The petitioner in fact at an earlier instance was before this Court in W.P. No. 4483/2007. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had sought for promotion with effect from the year 2001. This Court by the order dated 03.11.2008 disposed of the petition by noting that ultimately what was required was to provide the regulations to the petitioner and as such, the petition was disposed of. Since in the interregnum on 29.04.2006 promotions were granted to certain other officers to the post of Administrative Officer, the petitioner was once again aggrieved since according to the petitioner similarly placed officers found at Sl. Nos. 152, 153, 155 and 156 in the said list were granted promotion but the petitioner was denied, the petitioner has thereafter made request with the respondent but ultimately when the promotion was granted in the year 2010, since it had not been granted with effect from earlier date from which the petitioner was seeking, the petitioner is once again before this Court seeking that the respondent be directed to grant promotion with effect from the year 2001.

The respondent has filed its detailed objection statement. The reference is made to the Staff Regulations, 1960 to point out that the promotions to be granted is guided by the requirement to be satisfied as provided therein. It is the specific contention that Regulation 7(3) provides that promotion to the higher post is based on merit, suitability of the candidate for a particular post and seniority. It is contended that it is also provided therein that the merit and suitability may be judged by the confidential reports and/or interview and/or examinations. It is therefore contended that keeping in view the regulations, the petitioner cannot seek for promotion based merely on seniority or by contending that similarly placed employees have been promoted. It is contended that since the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of merit and suitability, the petitioner had not been considered at the earlier point though he had become eligible for promotion in the year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 to 2008-09 and ultimately on finding himself suitable, promotion has been granted. It is in that light contended that absence of adverse entry in the confidential report is not the sole criteria for promotion and it is only the officers who satisfy the requirement under the regulations more particularly with regard to merit and suitability would be considered for promotion. Hence, it is contended that action of the respondent in not promoting the petitioner though considered is justified and ultimately, when he was suitable, he was granted promotion with effect from 05.05.2010. The respondent therefore contends that the prayer made in the petition is liable to be rejected.

In the light of the rival pleadings put-forth by the parties, I have heard the learned counsel and perused the petition papers.

From the regulation it is no doubt clear that for promotion an officer should not only be senior but also should possess merit and suitability. In the light of the contention that has been put-forth by the respondent, if at all the same was to be justified by them, an appropriate document that was required to be relied upon is the proceedings of consideration as made by the promotion committee based on the service records of the petitioner. More particularly, in a case of the present nature, though not with reference to the year 2001, when subsequently promotions to the post of Administrative Officer has been made on 29.04.2006 and in the said process, as seen from Annexure-D to the petition nearly 249 officers were promoted, the comparative analysis made to indicate that the case of the petitioner was also considered along with the said officers but as compared to them, the petitioner was not suitable is an aspect which should have been established before this Court.

In fact, it is due to the said reason that when this petition was heard on 23.11.2015, respondent was directed to place such material before this Court. Though the proceedings of the promotion committee has not been placed herein, the learned counsel for the respondent would seek to rely on the annual appraisal reports of the petitioner from the year 2002. Having placed reliance on the same, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that though the same does not indicate any adverse entries, even then, only if an officer concerned is rated as ''excellent'', such officer would be considered for promotion. As already noticed, such comparative analysis to come to a conclusion as to whether all other officers who had been promoted to the post of Administrative Officer had been rated as ''excellent'' and the case of the petitioner was not considered because he had not been rated as ''excellent'' has not been established before this Court by producing the proceedings of consideration of the promotion committee with reference to that aspect of the matter.

Therefore, even in the absence of proceedings of the promotion committee, if the annual appraisal report are taken into consideration from the year 2002 onwards except for the overall assessment which is made on a ''1'' to ''6'' scale there is no clear indication to show that there is anything adverse recorded against the petitioner. In fact, on many of the criterias, he has been assessed at ''5'' or ''6'' in the scale of ''1'' to ''6''. That apart, the annual appraisal report for the year 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 would disclose that recommendation made therein reads "He must be promoted at the earliest". Such a recommendation is made on 30.04.2004. Therefore, without even reference to the earlier aspect of the matters, when in the objection statement it is indicated that the petitioner was considered for the cadre of Administrative Officer with the officers in the year 2003 onwards up to the year 2008-2009, when the recommendation as noticed above was in the year 2004, it would be difficult to understand as to why the petitioner had not been considered atleast after the year 2004. When such a recommendation had been made and in the objection statement it is admitted that he had been considered in the subsequent years but had not been promoted since he did not possess merit and suitability, such a contention is falsified by the annual report of the year 2003-2004.

Hence, even if the contention as put-forth in the objection statement is taken into consideration and the documents made available to this Court at the time of hearing is taken into consideration, though the prayer as made in the petition to consider the case of the petitioner from the year 2001 for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer cannot be determined in this petition, certainly when it is seen that similarly placed officers were promoted by the order dated 29.04.2006 at Annexure-D and in that light, when it is noticed that even prior to that, in the year 2004 there was a recommendation that he should be promoted immediately, the denial of promotion under the order dated 29.04.2006 when persons who are similarly placed and indicated at Sl. Nos. 152, 153, 155 and 156 were promoted, the denial of promotion to the petitioner atleast with effect from the said date would not be justified.

Therefore, the promotion considered through the communication dated 05.05.2010 with prospective effect would not be justified. Hence, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the respondent is directed to accord promotion to the petitioner in terms of the communication dated 05.05.2010 which has been issued but the same shall be treated with effect from 29.04.2006 when similarly placed officers were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer. On passing such order to grant promotion with retrospective effect from 29.04.2006, all consequences that would flow out of the same shall also be taken note by the respondent and appropriate order be passed in that regard to grant the same.

With the above said directions, the petition stands disposed of.