Delhi High Court
Shri J.B. Gupta Through Legal ... vs State Trading Corporation Of ... on 17 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6389/2000
% 17th December, 2013
SHRI J.B. GUPTA THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
.... Petitioners
Through: Ms. S. Rama, Advocate.
Versus
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.
...Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of
the respondent no.1/State Trading Corporation of India Limited, seeks the
relief of grant of promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post
of Deputy Marketing Manager with effect from the date when he became
eligible for the same.
2. A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner relies upon
the 1986 and 1988 promotion policies of the respondent no.1. A reference
to the 1986 promotion policy no doubt states that promotion would be time
W.P.(C) No.6389/2000 page 1 of 3
bound and with respect to promotion from Assistant Manager to a higher
post of Deputy Manager there would additionally be the requirement of six
years working experience as Assistant Manager. The same 1986 policy
however in para 5 states that promotion has to be on "seniority-cum-
fitness" basis. This aspect of "seniority-cum-fitness" issue with respect to
promotion is reiterated in 1988 policy in para 1.1 which states that
provisions of existing policy for time bound promotion will continue i.e
promotion will be time bound but subject to seniority-cum-fitness.
3. The petitioner was informed by the letter of the respondent
no.1 dated 20.9.2000 that petitioner was considered by the DPC but
petitioner was not granted promotion because as per its service records the
DPC did not find him fit for promotion as he did not meet the laid down
promotion norms. Petitioner therefore was required to aver as to what
were the laid down promotion norms with respect to fitness so that his
promotion can take place from an Assistant Manager to a Deputy Manager.
Petitioner however has not stated the fitness norms either in the writ
petition or in the rejoinder affidavit. Though the respondent no.1 in its
counter-affidavit is equally vague by simply stating that the required laid
down norms have not been met by the petitioner for promotion, however, it
is the petitioner who approaches the Court and it is therefore the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.6389/2000 page 2 of 3
who has to satisfy as to how the laid down norms with respect to fitness are
met by the petitioner. I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of
the petitioner that merely on completion of a particular period of years of
service there is an entitlement to automatic promotion. If I accept the
argument, it will be destructive of the requirement of principle of
"seniority-cum-fitness", and which is required by the 1986 and 1988
policies of the respondent no.1.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, since there are no norms
specified by the petitioner which he has met for „fitness‟ i.e there is lacking
necessary substantiation on record as to what were the laid down norms for
fitness, and how the petitioner satisfies those laid down norms of fitness,
petitioner hence is not entitled to the relief claimed of promotion.
5. I note that the petitioner expired during the pendency of the
writ petition and he is now represented by his legal heirs. Reference to the
petitioner in this judgment therefore includes reference to his legal heirs
wherever the context so requires.
6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 17, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
W.P.(C) No.6389/2000 page 3 of 3
