Narinder Kumar Khanna vs General Insurance Corporation Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 930 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 582/1997
%                                                     2nd February, 2015

NARINDER KUMAR KHANNA                                      ..... Petitioner
                Through:                 Mr. Udyan Srivastava, Advocate.

                          versus


GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
OF INDIA & ORS.                          ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Meenu Panday, Advocate.

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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner, an employee of the respondent no.2, seeks the relief of

promotion to the post of Assistant Manager from the year 1992. Petitioner

stood promoted from the year 1999 but the petitioner claims that he should

have been promoted from the year 1992.

2. In terms of the averment made in the writ petition, the post in question

is a selection post as per seniority-cum-merit, and, the following marks are

to be fixed for the selection process, for being appointed to the post of

Assistant Manager :

                                              AO     to AM

      2.     Insurance qualifications C.R. Form       8



      d.     Interview                                -
                                                     ___

3. Once the post is of seniority-cum-merit, merit has to be considered

with respect to job knowledge, past performance, suitability and potential as

stated in terms of the promotion policy, and with respect to various heads as

have been given as stated above specific marks have to be given as per the

selection process.

4. Petitioner participated in the selection process, but was declared to be

not successful. Once the petitioner is declared not to be successful in the

selection process, it was incumbent upon the petitioner in view of the aforesaid

admitted promotion policy and the marks which have been given as stated

above, for the selection process to be challenged, to state as to what marks

which other officers selected in the promotion process have got and how the

petitioner's marks are more than the persons who have been selected in

terms of the selection process for promotion. Petitioner, however, does not

even remotely state the marks which were given to the persons who have

been selected and that such marks are lower than the marks which have been

allocated to the petitioner.

5. Once the petitioner has not even stated in the writ petition that he has

received marks in the promotion process higher than the other candidates,

and the promotion is selection by applying seniority-cum-merit basis, no

relief as prayed for in the present writ petition can be granted because there

is only entitlement of the petitioner to be considered in the promotion

process and the petitioner has already been considered in the selection

process but was not selected but other candidates have been selected for the

reason that those other persons got higher marks in the selection process.

6. No other issue is urged before this Court.

7. Dismissed.

FEBRUARY 02, 2015                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
sn