Delhi High Court
Sh.Arun Kumar Sinha vs Cement Corporation Of India & Anr. on 10 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3247/1999
% 10th February, 2015
SH.ARUN KUMAR SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ram Anugrah Pandey, Advocate.
versus
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Puneet Taneja with Ms.Kopal
Shrivastava, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner claims the relief that he should be promoted from the
post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager (Electrical) from January,
1997 and that he should be paid the salary of a Manager when other persons
have been paid in the pay-scale of a Manager from January, 1997. The
relevant prayer clauses in the writ petition read as under:-
"The humble petitioner therefore most respectfully prays that his
Hon'ble Court may most graciously be pleased to:-
(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commending the
respondents to promote the petitioner from the Post of Dy.Manager
(Elect.) to the Post of Manager (Elect.) from January, 1997.
(b) direct the respondents to pay the salary of the Manager from the
date when others like Mr.A.Kothari, Mr.E.Ravindra and
Mr.A.K.Gopalia have been granted the pay scale from the Month of
January 1997 in their respective departments.
(c) direct the respondents to file the service rules for Executive
Officers of the Cement Corporation of India.
(d) direct the respondents to re-examine the previous ACRs and
correct them in order to avoid any further complications in future
promotion of the petitioner.
(e) the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to allow the cost of
this petition and further most graciously be pleased to pass any such
other order which may be deemed fit and necessary in the ends of
justice."
2. A reading of the entire writ petition as also the rejoinder does not
show that what is the specific rule of the employer organization/respondent
no.1 for the promotion from the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) to
Manager (Electrical). Pleading of this rule and filing of this rule of
promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager (Electrical) was
required because as per the promotion rule, the petitioner must show what
are the eligibility criteria and as to whether the post in question is an
automatic promotion post or the selection post. If the post is an automatic
promotion post, then what are the eligibility criteria to be satisfied by the
petitioner for being granted promotion from the post of Deputy Manager
(Electrical) to Manager (Electrical) had to be pleaded. If the promotion post
is a selection post then besides eligibility criteria there could be other aspects
of constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and which
has to examine various aspects including Annual Confidential Reports
(ACRs), as per the relevant rule would have to be pleaded for the petitioner
to claim the relief of promotion.
3. No doubt, a learned Single Judge of this court has passed detailed
orders on 19.3.2014 and 01.7.2014, which indicate that there were two
channels of promotion viz the fast track channel and the ordinary promotion
channel, and that for the fast track promotion two continuous 'Outstanding'
ACRs are required and for the normal route of promotion, there appears to
be a requirement of three ACRs of 'Very Good' of three preceding years.
However, it again bears repetition that neither in the writ petition nor in the
rejoinder nor in the entire record of this Court what are the relevant rules for
entitlement of promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager
(Electrical) are found and which rules have to be applied by a judgment of
this Court before the petitioner is granted the relief of promotion as claimed.
In the absence of the relevant rules with respect to the promotion from
Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager (Electrical); how the petitioner
satisfies such eligibility criteria; how the petitioner also satisfies any other
requirements either for being given automatic promotion or for being
considered by the DPC; and accordingly therefore this Court cannot decide
this writ petition in favour of the petitioner because to decide the writ
petition in favour of the petitioner, this Court must give a finding that the
petitioner satisfies the requirements of the relevant rules of promotion for
being promoted from Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager (Electrical).
4. A reading of the writ petition only shows that essentially the petitioner
claims bias against him and that the petitioner should be promoted like other
persons whose names are stated in the relief clause (b) of the writ petition.
Merely because others have got promotion, and would have been promoted
as per the relevant promotion rules, does not mean that the petitioner should
also be granted promotion because the others have been granted promotion,
and it is only if the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria of promotion
from the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager (Electrical) that
petitioner can be granted promotion. So far as the issue of bias is concerned,
the said aspect could have only come in, if, first of all it was known what
were the eligibility criteria with respect to the promotion, if the eligibility
criteria is not met by having the requisite bench marks of 'Outstanding' or
'Very Good', then how are the particular ACRs of the years 1994-95, 1995-
96 and from 01.4.1996 to 30.9.1996 incorrect for being challenged by the
petitioner on the ground of bias or any other ground pleaded.
5. Unfortunately, even the respondent no.1/employer in the counter-
affidavit has also gone only on the averments of the petitioner made in the
writ petition and no relevant rules have been given which are applicable for
promotion from the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) to Manager
(Electrical), though of course, it was not for the respondent no.1/employer
to do so but for the petitioner who has come before this Court to plead and
prove how he satisfies the eligibility criteria for grant of promotion or
constitution of a DPC for the petitioner to be considered for promotion.
6. I may also state that in the counter-affidavit the respondent has
specifically said, and this aspect is not even disputed by the petitioner, that
for the ordinary track of promotion, the petitioner was considered by the
DPC, but the petitioner was not found eligible. Therefore, unless and until
how the DPC went wrong, inasmuch as the DPC would have applied
particular eligibility criteria of the promotion rules, and only if relevant
criteria were not applied and which aspects should have been pleaded in the
writ petition, only then this Court could have held that the rejection by the
DPC of the petitioner for being promoted from the post of Deputy Manager
(Electrical) to Manager (Electrical) was an illegal act of the DPC.
7. In view of the above, in the absence of any pleading whatsoever, and
which was required also to be substantiated in terms of the requirements of
the relevant rules including filing of relevant documents such as the ACRs,
this Court cannot grant any relief of promotion to the petitioner as prayed in
this writ petition.
8. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 10, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA
