R.K. Sharma vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1188 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.9025/2011

%                                                          March 08, 2013


R.K. SHARMA                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate.


                          versus


ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.        ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard on the main writ

petition.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the relief of promotion

on account of his having cleared the written test for Scale III and so declared

vide list dated 28.2.2008 of the respondent No.1/employer. Petitioner is

placed at serial No.75 of this list of candidates who have cleared the written

test.

3. On being asked as to what are the rules which govern the

promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III, and which relief the petitioner is

seeking, counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to

the criteria for promotion which are given at running pages 194 to 196 of the

paper book. As per this promotion criteria, the total weightage of 100 marks

is divided into four parts i.e 30 marks for written test, 5 marks for insurance

qualifications, 35 marks for work record and 30 for seniority. The aforesaid

marks of 30, 5,35 & 30are the maximum permissible marks, however, what

will the actual marks for each head will be of the result of written test,

insurance qualification, work record and of seniority which is to be

scrutinized by a Promotion Committee as stated in Rule 12 at running page

196.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has then drawn the attention of this

Court to the marks given to the petitioner which are filed at running page 86

being the Annexure R-1/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondent. This

annexure shows that the petitioner has only secured 28.38 marks with

respect to the promotion exercise, 2008-2009. This annexure further itself

shows that the last officer in the 75% list secured 76.24 marks, last officer in

25% list secured 53.74 marks, whereas the petitioner only got 28.38 marks,

and hence was not declared entitled to be promoted.

5. Counsel for the petitioner argues that marks given being 28.38

are not correct, however, no such factual basis is laid in the writ petition, and

thus I fail to understand as to how the Promotion Committee which has

scrutinized the relevant criteria for considering the promotion of the

petitioner can be said to be wrong on a bald assertion that the weightage of

a total of 100 marks has wrongly been given so far as the petitioner is

concerned.

6. Finally, counsel for the petitioner states that he is senior to

other persons promoted and therefore he is entitled to promotion. This

argument is without merit because for promotion to higher post, and as

already stated above, seniority is only one of the aspects and the other

aspects as per the rules have also to be considered by the Promotion

Committee, and on considering which, the Promotion Committee has found

the petitioner unfit for promotion as he has secured marks much lower than

other officers who have been promoted.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is

accordingly dismissed.

8. Next date of 8.8.2013 will stand cancelled.

C.M. Nos.20326/2011 (stay) and 2982/2013 (under Section 151 CPC for directions)

9. Since the writ petition is disposed of, all the pending

applications also stand disposed of.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 08, 2013 Ne