Ram Rattan vs United India Insurance Company ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1723 Del

+R-6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision : 25th March, 2011

+       WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3716/1995

        RAM RATTAN                                               ..... Petitioner
                                      Through Mr. T.D. Yadav, Advocate along
                                      with petitioner in person.


                          Versus

        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
                                       .....Respondents
                       Through Nemo.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Mr. Ram Rattan, the petitioner, joined as Assistant (Typist)

in the United Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to

as the respondent No.3) on 1st April, 1986.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been

wrongly denied promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the

Scheduled Caste category (SC category, for short) in the years

1992, 1993 and 1994. He has accordingly challenged and

questioned the action of the respondent No. 3 in not promoting

him as Senior Assistant.

3. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the persons who

have been promoted as Senior Assistant and against whom the

petitioner has grievance, have not been impleaded as

respondents to the present writ petition.

3A. The respondent No. 3 in the amended counter affidavit

has referred to Chapter III of the promotion policy, the relevant

portions of which are reproduced below:

                 "PARAGRAPH 16:          PREPARATION           OF
                 PANELS

                        After     promotional   vacancies     are
                 announced,         the   concerned      Personal

Department, shall prepare panels of persons eligible for promotion in terms of the eligibility criteria and record the total marks obtained for seniority or seniority and qualifications as the case may be. In case of promotion to the cadre of AAO and Senior Assistants the panel shall respectively be equal to 5 times and 4 times the number of promotional vacancies whereas in case of other cadres it shall be 3 times the number of promotional vacancies.

Note: if two or more employees secure the same number of total marks for seniority and qualifications, then all employees scoring the same number of total marks at the cut off point may be included in the panel notwithstanding the stipulation limiting the panel to 3 or 4 or 5 times the number of vacancies.

PARAGRAPH 29: PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF SENIOR ASSISTANTS

Employees in the Assistant cadre who have:

(a) Put in at least 3 years service in the cadre and are qualified as A.I.I.I. or A.C.I.I. or have passed subjects of the Institute of Actuaries, or

(b) Put in at least 5 years in the cadre and have passed Licentiate Examination of I.I.I. or

(c) Put in at least 7 years in service in the cadre, or

(d) Reached the ceiling of the Assistants‟ scale shall be considered for promotion to the Senior Assistant.

PARAGRAPH 30: SELECTION

30. Selection shall be made on the basis of Seniority, Qualifications and Work Record.

PARAGRAPH 36: APPRAISAL CRITERION AND WEIGHTAGE

In the system of appraisal for promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant Stenographers, Assistant (Clerical) and Assistant (Typing) the following scheme of weightage shall operate:-

                          Criterion       Maximum Marks


                          Qualification       20
                          Work Record         30
                                              ------

                                              ------

                 PARAGRAPH 38:            RECKONING          OF
                 WEIGHTAGE

                       2 marks for each completed year of

service in the cadre as on 31st December of preceding year shall be given. Service record of 6 month or more shall be treated as one

completed year of service while service below six months in the cadre shall be ignored.

PARAGRAPH 39: QUALIFICATIONS

Marks for academic qualification and professional qualifications shall be assigned separately but the limitations on the maximum for qualifications shall operate on the total marks. In the scheme of weightage for qualifications the marks for the highest qualifications shall be given:

(a) Academic qualifications (Maximum marks 15) for promotion to the cadres of A.A.O., Senior Assistants, Stenographers and Assistant)

v) Post graduation or Doubt

Where a candidate holds a diploma, which is regarded by the Central Government in the matters of recruitment/promotion in Government service, as equivalent to a degree, the candidate shall be considered as a graduate, and where he holds such a diploma in addition to a degree, he shall be considered double graduate.

(b) Technical Qualifications (Maximum marks 10) for promotion to the cadre of A.A.O., Senior Assistant, Stenographer and Assistant.

i) Licentiate of Federation of Insurance of Insurance Institute or one subject one subject

ii) Associate of Federation of Insurance Institute or Associate of Chartered Insurance Institute

or three subjects of Institute of Actuaries 6

iii) Fellowship of Federation of Insurance Institute or Fellowship of Chartered Insurance Institute or Associate of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or Cost & Works Accountants of India or passing at least 5 subjects of Institute of Actuaries. 10

PARAGRAPH 40: WORK RECORD

The confidential reports for the past three years will be taken into consideration--- and they shall be rated by the Promotion Committee as the Scheme of Rating the Confidential Reports. For the purpose of the Scheme of Appraisal the average of the 3 years shall be taken. Where, however, the reports are available for less than 3 years, the average shall be taken over the years for which the reports are available.

                 PARAGRAPH 42:           SELECTION             AND
                 RANKING

The committee shall first finalize the recommendations on the basis of marks gained on all the criteria entering into for appraisal, and arrange the list in the descending order of the marks gained. For being ranked the candidate must secure at least 40 marks (30 marks in case of SC/ST candidates) in the aggregate. However, this proviso shall not apply to ranking list prepared under para 31.

PARAGRAPH 46: CANDIDATES ON THE RANKING LIST WHO HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED PROMOTION

The ranking list once published by the Promoting Authority shall remain in force till it is replaced by the next list and the candidates

on the list shall be offered promotion up to the time the list is in force. The candidates who have not been offered promotion during this period will be placed on the top of the next ranking list."

4. The aforesaid paragraphs show that seniority alone was

not the criteria for promotion as Senior Assistant. It envisages a

process of selection on the basis of seniority, qualification and

work record. The aforesaid paragraphs prescribed a ranking list

under which different aspects have been given due weightage.

Selection is on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate

and accordingly a ranking list is published. For being ranked,

SC candidate must secure 30 marks in aggregate.

5. The petitioner has contended that in the seniority list

enclosed as Annexure P-1 dated 27th May, 1992 he has been

shown at serial No. 3 in SC/ST category. A perusal of the said

list shows that the said list was published in response to the

promotion exercise undertaken in 1992. With regard to year

1992, in the counter affidavit it is stated that there were 4

vacancies available for SC candidates, including 1 due to inter-

change with the ST vacancy. Accordingly, the names of four

employees, viz., Mr. Jasbir Singh, Mr. Bharat Lal, Mr. Mahavir

Singh and Mr. Kanhaiya Lal were promoted and Mr. Tilak Raj

was placed in the reserve list. The petitioner has not made any

specific allegations against the said four. The petitioner has

made specific allegations against one Ms. Harminder Kaur and it

is alleged that she was promoted though her name was not

included in the ranking list. In the counter affidavit it has been

clarified that the name of Ms. Harminder Kaur was included as

she was in the reserve list for the year 1991 and, therefore,

automatically appeared at the top of the list for the year 1992. It

may be also noted that the respondent No. 3 has filed the

seniority list for the year 28th June, 1991 in which the name of

Ms. Harminder Kaur has been shown at serial No. 6. The

respondent No. 3 has also placed on record the ranking list for

promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant as on 12th December,

1992 in which the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 6. The

petitioner is unable to respond and controvert the aforesaid

clarification in the counter affidavit.

6. With regard to promotion in the year 1993, it is submitted

by the petitioner that there were 21 total vacancies out of which

3 were reserved for SC candidates. It is stated that the

petitioner was shown at serial No. 2 in SC category in the list

based on seniority-cum-post awarding 29 appraisal marks.

Another allegation made is that as per the list published, there

were 6 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistant which were to

be filled up by SC candidates but this figure was wrongly and

illegally reduced to 3.

7. With regard to second contention, the respondent No3 in

the counter affidavit has clarified that only 3 vacancies were

reserved for SC candidates and this was notified vide circular

dated 21st January, 1993, copy of which has been enclosed. It

is stated that in the circular dated 1st June, 1993, 6 vacancies for

ST candidates by mistake were shown as vacancies for SC

candidates. It is pointed out that 6 accumulated vacancies for

ST candidates were available in the said year. The said

respondent has admitted that the petitioner had obtained 29

marks on the basis of seniority-cum-qualification. The petitioner

has not taken into consideration his grade in the final ranking list

published on 31st December, 1993 in which petitioner‟s name

appeared at serial No. 5 and in the remark column it is stated

"not recommended" as he had not scored minimum qualifying 30

marks. The respondent No.3 in the counter affidavit have stated

that only 3 SC candidates were promoted to the cadre of Senior

Assistant in 1993.

8. With regard to year 1994, it is submitted by the petitioner

that there were 2 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistant

which were to be filled up from the SC candidates. The

petitioner claims that he was awarded 33 marks, which was the

highest amongst the SC candidates, but he was not

selected/appointed. The respondent No.3 in the counter

affidavit has submitted that for the year 1994 no vacancy for SC

candidates was available. It is further stated that the name of

the petitioner had appeared at serial No. 2. Mr. Gajraj Singh

was at serial No. 1. It is stated that again in the year 1995, no

SC vacancy in the cadre of Senior Assistant was available.

However, one ST vacancy was available for inter-change and

this was accepted. Accordingly, Mr. Gajraj Singh, who was at

serial No. 1, was promoted. Mr. Gajraj Singh has not been

impleaded as a party. In the next year 1996, no vacancy was

available and ultimately the petitioner was promoted in the cadre

of Senior Assistant in 1997.

9. It is noticed that the petitioner has gone on the

presumption that he is entitled to promotion by accounting his

marks under the two heads, „seniority‟ and „qualification‟. The

petitioner has not taken his total marks, including the marks

obtained by him under the third head on the basis of the „work

record‟. The petitioner has not specifically challenged or

questioned the marks allotted to him under the head „work

record‟. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was

assigned duties of cash handling but he had failed to discharge

the same efficiently and was negligent. The petitioner had made

a complaint in this regard against the senior officers but no merit

was found in the same. The complaint was rejected.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be

granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed, without any order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

MARCH 25, 2011 VKR