Shri Pramod Sirsikar vs The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Ors.

(PER : Rajnish R. Vyas)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of present petition, prayer is made to quash and set aside order dated 4.6.2019, passed by respondent No.2, by which the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected observing that request for grant of promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer from deemed dated 30.4.2011, cannot be considered.

The petitioner entered into service with Department of Life Insurance Corporation of India as Assistant Typist in the year 1989. He was then promoted to the Higher Grade Assistant, in the year 1996, and in the year 2004, was selected for the post of Assistant Administrator Officer. According to him, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Branch Manager but same was denied to him. He further contended that his Annual Confidential Reports (“ACRs) were “good” and had this reports been communicated to him, he would have received an opportunity to improve himself. Though his ACR’s were not communicated to him, same were taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. It is a specific case of the petitioner that ACR’s ought to have been informed to him. He accordingly invited our attention to the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others (2008(8)SC 725); Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India, (2013(9) SCC 566; and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of India [(AIR 2018 SC (suppl) 1252 ].

The petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 580/2024 since promotion was denied to him. In the said petition, the petitioner had sought directions to the respondents fro granting him deemed date promotion along with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was decided on 28.3.2019 in which the petitioner contended that promotion could not have been denied to him on the ground of uncommunicated adverse entries in Annual Confidential Report. The Court observed that there is no dispute about the fact that during pendency of said petition, the promotion was granted and which has been given to petitioner by following the law crystallized by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Dev Dutta and Sukhdev Singh, cited supra. The Court further observed that in memo of said writ petition there was no specific pleadings made showing that he is entitled to be promoted from particular date. Thus, liberty was given to the petitioner to make a representation seeking giving of promotion to him from a particular date. He then submitted representation on 11.4.2016 which was then rejected on 4.6.2019 illegally.

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents contends that the issue cannot be decided only on the basis of non communication of Confidential Report but prior to that the numerical rating of the petitioner be also considered which would clearly reveal that marks obtained by the petitioner were less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in main round. He then submits that the petitioner was rightly promoted in the year 2014 to the cadre of Administrative Officer on the criteria of merit, suitability and seniority. According to the respondent/State, petitioner was promoted at the appropriate time, when he was found fit as per provisions of regulation 7 of the Staff Regulation, 1960 and therefore, request for grant of deem date of promotion i.e. 30.4.2011 was not permissible.

We have perused the record and heard learned respective counsels. If the impugned order dated 4.6.2019 is perused, it would be crystal clear that while considering the issue regarding grant of promotion, the authority have taken into consideration numerical rating and it was the basis for non selection of the petitioner for promotion. For ready reference, the chart which is part of impugned order is reproduced herein below:

The aforesaid chart would make it clear that petitioner has secured less marks than obtained by last selected candidate. The contention of the petitioner that he was not made aware about the aforesaid marks given, cannot be accepted, as it is not based on any pleadings. Even otherwise, petition was filed in the year 2019 and thereafter, no counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner to substantiate his stand. The respondent authority have rightly considered that petitioner was promoted in the year 2014 to the cadre of Administrative Officer on criteria of merit, suitability and seniority and therefore, he was entitled from that date only and was not entitled from 30.4.2011 in view of Staff Regulations, 1960.

The law laid down by the judgments cited supra that confidential reports are required to be communicated to the employee within reasonable time and communication of adverse entry only is not enough, cannot be disputed. Fact remains that petitioner secured less marks than last selected candidate and therefore, granting of promotion and consequential benefits from 2014 cannot be said to be illegal.

In light of above, since no case is made out for interference as hence, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.