Gauhati High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the notice dated 16-01-2024 of the Promotion Exercise 2024-25 to the cadre of Scale VII issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (‘NIAC’) on the ground of it being illegal and violative of the Promotion Policy 2006, the Single Judge Bench of Kardak Ete, J*., finding no procedural infirmity or illegality in the promotion exercise dismissed the petition holding that the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role and is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Scale I cadre in 1988 in NIAC. After subsequent promotions, the petitioner presently serves as Deputy General Manager in the Scale VI cadre.
The NIAC on 16-01-2024 issued notice for the Promotion Exercise 2024-25 for filling sixteen vacancies in the cadre of General Manager (Scale VII) in the General Insurers’ (Public Sector) Association of India (‘GIPSA’) Members Companies. The petitioner, being in Sl. No.44 in the overall seniority list and at Serial No. 4 in the zone of consideration was also considered for promotion and accordingly registered himself for online screening exercise and gave the final interview along with 46 other eligible candidates. The petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.4 in the combined seniority list of all the GIPSA companies. Thereafter, sixteen officers of the Scale VI cadre were promoted to Scale VII cadre. The petitioner’s name was not on the list. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the Promotion Exercise 2024-25.
Contentions from the Petitioner’s side
M. N. Choudhury, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client, a highly accomplished Scale VI officer ranked fourth on the combined seniority list, was unfairly denied promotion despite an extraordinary and unblemished service record. The petitioner consistently acted in the best interests of his employers, earning “outstanding” remarks and Grade-A appraisals for five consecutive years. Despite being recommended by the Screening Committee, his name was not considered for promotion, while some candidates only a year his senior were promoted. Mr. Choudhury contended that the respondent authorities arbitrarily violated the Promotion Policy by not declaring vacancies for all four companies and adopting a “pick and choose” approach, which he argued was arbitrary, prejudiced the petitioner, and violated both natural justice and the Promotion Policy, 2006.
Contentions from the Respondent’s side
Zorawar Singh, counsel for the respondent, asserted that the 2024-25 promotion exercise adhered to the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006, with a fair selection process prioritizing merit over seniority for Scale VII promotions. He explained that top leadership roles demanded proven performance, vision, managerial acumen, and strong decision-making, which the Promotion Committee objectively assessed using parameters from the said policy, including a candidates performance appraisal record for the last six years. He pointed out that prior to 2011, seniority held no weight, and points were only allocated to it thereafter. He further pointed out that the petitioner himself was promoted to Scale VI in 2021-22 under the same rules. There was no illegality or arbitrariness in the implementation of the Promotion Policy 2006, and while employees have a right to be considered for promotion, there’s no vested or fundamental right to promotion enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis and Decision
The Court began by perusal through the Promotion Policy 2006. The Court noted the records show that all the steps as enumerated in the Promotion Policy were followed to the letter.
On the contention of petitioner about the non-declaration of number of vacancies being in utter disregard of the Promotion Policy, the Court noted that as per records the promotion exercises were conducted for 2023-24 and 2024-25 and the petitioner had participated in the same without any demur.
The Court opined that “It is a well settled principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such”. The Court noted that the respondent authorities appear to have proceeded fairly by applying the same yardsticks and norms to all eligible candidates and therefore no procedural infirmity or arbitrariness can be discerned in the assessment process for promotions.
The Court referred to the decision of Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the view that ‘a right to be considered for promotion is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right’ cannot be accepted. That the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be ‘considered’ for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1).
The Court further referred to the decision in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, wherein the Supreme Court had held that “…a right to be considered for promotion being a facet of the right to equal opportunity in employment and appointment, would have to be treated as a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India but such a right cannot translate into a vested right of the employee for being necessarily promoted to the promotional post, unless the rules expressly provide for such a situation”.
The Court made a reference to B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, (1998) 6 SCC 720, wherein the Supreme Court while holding that the principal merit-cum-seniority lays greater emphasis on merit and ability rather than seniority had cited the decision in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836 saying “For inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor…”.
The Court noted that the petitioner was duly considered for promotion but could not make it up to the list of sixteen selected candidates. The Court further held that was no illegality much less unfairness in the actions of the respondents. Upon finding no procedural infirmity or illegality in the promotion exercise the Court dismissed the writ petition.
[Lathrang Born Buam v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2945, decided on 03-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: S P Sharma, S P Sharma, K N Choudhury, N Sarma, A Kashyap, K Ahmed, U Sharma, Advocates
For the respondent: Dy. S.G.I., Md A Rahman (R-2), Ishani Shome (R-2), T R Sen(R-2),A W Aman (R-2), Sarfraz Nawaz(R-4,5,8), T R Sen (R-4,5,8), Surajit Das (R-4,5,8), A W Aman (R-4,5,8), Surajit Das (R-6), S A Barbhuyan (R-6), T R Sen (R-6),Samim Rahman (R-6), Sarfraz Nawaz (R-6), A W Aman (R-6), S A Barbhuyan (R-3,7), T R Sen (R-3,7), Samim Rahman (R-3,7), Suraya Rahman (R-3,7), A W Aman (R-3,7)
Buy Constitution of India HERE
