Delhi High Court
Manish Gupta vs Uti Infrastructure Technology ... on 13 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 13, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11050/2017 & C.M.45124/2017
MANISH GUPTA .... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Swati Jindal
and Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocates
versus
UTI INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES
LIMITED AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Eshita Baruah, Advocate for
Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for respondent-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner claims to be a Divisional Manager of first respondent
since June, 2012 and his grievance is that his case for promotion to the
post of Assistant Vice President stands negated by first respondent vide
order of 7th October, 2016 (Annexure P-4), whose review was sought by
petitioner in October, 2017 and vide Communication of 26th October,
2016 (Annexure P-5 colly.), first respondent informed petitioner that the
promotions have been made on 7th October, 2016 after taking into
consideration the service, performance appraisal ratings and the marks
secured in the interview. As per Communication of 9th June, 2017
(Annexure P-11) of first respondent, petitioner's Representation against
promotion order of 7th October, 2016, was dismissed by simply observing
that the procedure laid down for promotion has been followed.
2. It is the case of petitioner that against impugned Communication of
9th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11), petitioner had preferred a Representation
vide Email of 17th July, 2017 (Annexure P-13), which, according to
petitioner, has not been responded to till date. It is also the case of
petitioner that a detailed Representation of 6th November, 2017 (Annexure
P-16) against impugned Communication of 9th June, 2017 was made vide
an Email to first respondent, but to no avail.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that way back on 8 th
February, 2017, petitioner vide a Representation made through an Email
(Annexure P-8) had sought from first respondent as to what was the
criteria for promotion from Divisional Manager to Assistant Vice
President and had sought certified copy of seniority list of Divisional
Managers as petitioner claims to be the senior most Divisional Manager
and so, petitioner is entitled for being promoted.
4. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by petitioner's
counsel that vide Email of 3rd February, 2017 (Annexure P-7), petitioner
had also sought his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), but
it has not been supplied to petitioner.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of this petition in limini with permission to petitioner to make
a concise Representation to first respondent within a week and if it is so
done, first respondent shall decide it by passing a speaking order and
would also intimate petitioner about his APARs, seniority list and the
criteria governing the promotion from the post of Divisional Manager to
Assistant Vice President, within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner
may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
7. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2017
s
