S.J.V.N. Limited earlier known as Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Limited vs Manmeet Gupta

Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—These two appeals are directed against a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in CWP Nos.1101 & 1311 of 2001, decided on 31.5.2007. The writ petitioners in both the cases were eligible for being promoted from E-2 to E-3 Grade w.e.f. 1.1.2000. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) was held and both the writ petitioners were found fit for promotion. However, the DPC recommended that they be promoted w.e.f. 1.7.2000 and not from 1.1.2000. On the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, the appellant Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVNL for short) promoted the petitioners to the E-3 Grade w.e.f. 1.7.2000.

Aggrieved by this action, both the writ petitioners filed writ petitions praying that they should have been promoted w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and not w.e.f. 1.7.2000. They also pleaded that one Shri R.K. Jagota, who had been found fit for promotion by the same DPC, had been promoted w.e.f. 1.1.2000. The stand of the appellants is that it is for the DPC to recommend from which date an employee should be promoted and the employer has followed the recommendations of the DPC.

The Rules which have been quoted by the learned Single Judge prescribe the criteria which have to be taken into consideration for determining the suitability of employees for promotion in the executive cadre. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners in these two cases fulfilled the requisite criteria and secured 75 marks, which made them eligible for being promoted to E-3 Grade. Shri Jagota had secured 76 marks. This, by itself, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, would not be a ground to say that the petitioners should be promoted from a later date. The marks were only an eligibility criteria and the DPC did not draw up a merit list on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Once the candidates fulfilled the eligibility criteria, they should have been promoted. Otherwise, the DPC should have given specific reasons as to why it was recommending that the employees should be promoted from a later date. No such reasons have been shown to us.

We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals, which stand dismissed. We, however, make it clear that our above observations are only with regard to the promotion to the E-3 category and we have not gone into the issue of promotion to other categories.

Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.