[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/17 vs Union Of India And 23 Ors on 8 December, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010127762025
2025:GAU-AS:16867
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/197/2025
LATHRANG BORN BUAM
S/O LATE DR. P WELSON BUAM, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE
OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE,
STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR, G.S. ROAD,
GUWAHATI 781008
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 23 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY. OF FINANCIAL SERVICE, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001,
INDIA.
2:GENERAL INSURANCE PUBLIC SECTOR ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENT HOUSE
3RD FLOOR
A 25/27
ASAF ALI ROAD
NEW DELHI.
3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING
87
M.G. ROD
FORT MUMBAI 400001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM
MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected]. IN PH 022-
22708219 ALSO AT 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR
R.G. CITY CENTRE
LSC
Page No.# 2/17
BLOCK B
LAWRENCE ROAD
DELHI 110035 (THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER)
4:ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (OICL)
AT BLOCK-4
PLATE-A
NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
NEW DELHI-110023
(THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
5:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(UIICL)
24
WHITES ROAD
CHANNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR0.
6:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD 81
NEW TOWN
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
7:GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
(GIC RE)
SURAKSHA
170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
8:AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. (AICIL)
PLATE B AND C 5TH FLOOR
BLOCK 1
EAST KIDWAI NAGAR
NEW DELHI 10023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
9:MS. KALAIVENI SUBBIAH
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL)
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI 60014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
10:MS. CHANDRA S. IYER
Page No.# 3/17
GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE)
SURAKSHA
170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
11:MS. VENUGOPAL NALINI
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
12:KHARBANDA LALIT KUMAR
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
13:MS. SAXENA ANJANA
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
14:SACHINDRADATTARA M SALVI
GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020 INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
15:SANJAY JOSHI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL0
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
Page No.# 4/17
16:SANDIP SHANKARRAO KARMAKAR
GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE)
SURAKSHA 170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)
17:SANJAY LAILA
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374
PLOT NO CBC 81
NEW TOWN
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
18:C.M. MANOHARAN
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL)
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
19:RAMAN K.V.
THE NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED
AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING
87 M.G. ROAD
FORT MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
20:RAJIV KR. GUPTA
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (OICL) AT BLOCK 4
PLATE A
NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
NEW DELHI 110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
21:MS. VINITA JOSHI
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. (OICL) AT BLOCK 4
PLATE A NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
NEW DELHI 110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
22:AMANDEEP SINGH GROVER
Page No.# 5/17
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL)
PREMIES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD 81 NEW TOWN
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
23:S. SIVASANKAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. (NICL) PREMISES N. 18-0374 PLOT NO.
CBD-81
NEW TOW
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
24:MS. MINI GEORGE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO.
CBD 81
NEW TOWN
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR
Advocates for the appellant : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents: Ms. K. Phukan, CGC.
Mr. Zorawar Singh, Adv.
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date on which judgment is reserved : 05.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08/12/2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
Page No.# 6/17
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Zorawar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 8. Ms. K. Phukan,
learned CGC appears for the respondent no.1.
2. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner has put to challenge the
judgment and order dated 03.06.2025, by which the prayer of the petitioner for
setting aside the impugned selection, promotion of the private respondents and
for having a review DPC, had been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
3. The appellant's case is that in terms of the Promotion Policy, as laid out
in Clause 7.1, Clause 8.1, Clause 9.1.1, Clause 9.1.2, Clause 13.0.1.3 and Clause
13.1.1, the selection process for promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII
of the respondent no.3 requires the following parameters to be considered :-
merit and suitability, with due regard to seniority.
4. The appellant's further case is that the appellant has been superseded
for promotion to Scale-VII on two occasions, i.e. in the Financial Year 2022-2023
and 2023-2024. It is the case of the appellant that in terms of the Promotion
Policy for selection of candidates for promotion to Scale-VII, the parameters on
which marks are to be given are as follows :
Work Record - 60 marks.
Seniority - 20 marks.
Screening - 10 marks.
Page No.# 7/17
Interview - 20 marks.
5. The appellant's counsel submits that when the appellant had secured
60 marks under the parameters 'Work Record', the appellant being the senior to
all the private respondents except respondent nos.9 and 10, the other
respondents, except for respondent nos.9 and 10, could not have been
promoted over the appellant, by superseding him. Further, the appellant had
been awarded 7.36 marks out of 10 under the heading 'Screening'.
6. The appellant's counsel submits that a perusal of the pleadings goes to
show that the respondent no.12, during his service career, had made a loss for
the insurance company. Further, the predecessor of respondent no. 12 had
made a profit for the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the predecessor
of the appellant had made a loss for the concerned company, while the
appellant had made profits for the concerned company. As such, there was no
ground for the respondents to have promoted the respondent no.12 over and
above the appellant. In respect of the respondent no.9, the appellant's counsel
submits that the said respondent no.9 was having a criminal case against him
arising out of FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 under Section 420/34 IPC. Thus
the said respondent no.9 could not have been promoted over the appellant, who
did not have any criminal case against him. He also submits that as per his
information, the respondent nos. 14 & 16 had secured less than 60 marks in the
selection process, prior to interview. However, they were still promoted by
superseding the appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraph-40 of
the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 has
Page No.# 8/17
taken a stand that promotions at the level of Scale-VII is subjective in nature.
He accordingly submits that promotions should have been made on an objective
assessment of various parameters and not on subjective satisfaction. He also
submits that the records of the selection process had not been brought before
the learned Single Judge, to enable the learned Single Judge to have looked into
the manner, as to how marks had been provided to the candidates. He submits
that unless the respondents produce the contemporaneous records to show the
distribution of marks to the various candidates, the promotion based on
subjective satisfaction of the respondents cannot be a valid procedure for
promotion, as the same would be in violation of the Promotion Policy.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single
Judge has decided the writ petition on wrong understanding of the 'Promotion
Policy' wherein, he has taken seniority to be a factor only to extent that the
same would be considered for promotion where a candidate falls into the zone
of consideration. After a candidate falls into the zone of consideration, the
selection would be based only on merit without seniority having any further role.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8, on the other hand
submits that the promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII is to be made
on the basis of Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Policy, which provides that
promotion to Scale-VII would solely be based on merit, though Seniority would
be duly respected in terms of Clause 7.1. He submits that a reading of Clause
11.1 and Clause 11.5 would go to show that the marks to be provided under the
parameter of Seniority has been given importance, only in respect of promotion
from Scale-I to Scale-V and not for promotion beyond Scale-V, though seniority
is to be respected when all other things are equal.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 further submits that
Page No.# 9/17
the appellant has not challenged the Promotion Policy as on date and the
appellant had also been promoted to Scale-VI from Scale-V, on the basis of the
existing Promotion Policy. He also submits that the appellant has now brought
out a new case in the writ appeal, which was never an issue before the learned
Single Judge. In this respect, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8
submits that the FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 and the other documents
mentioned in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant on 30.07.2025,
cannot be permitted to be agitated in this writ appeal, as it is a settled principle
of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for
either of the parties, when no such pleadings had been made before the learned
Single Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 also submits
that Closure Report has been filed in respect of FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020
by the Pandav Nagar Police Station, Delhi and there is a protest petition pending
against the same in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Karkardooma
Courts. The learned counsel also submits that as per the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the entire records had been
produced and perused by the learned Single Judge.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 submits that 47
persons were screened for the 16 vacant posts, as one person did not appear
for the selection process. However, the marks secured by the appellant placed
him in the 19th position, for which he could not be promoted. He also submits
that the issue with regard to the respondent No. 12 apparently having incurred
losses for the company does not give a true picture of the work performance of
an employee in the business of an insurance company. In this respect, he
submits as an example, that when Mr. 'A' makes a loss for the company @
Rs.10/- per annum and the next incumbent to the said post makes a loss @
Page No.# 10/17
Rs.5/-, then the same amounts to a vast improvement in the company finances.
On the other hand, when Mr. 'A' makes a profit for the company @ Rs.10 per
annum and the next incumbent makes a profit of only Rs. 5/- per annum, then
that amounts to a loss of profit for the company. The other issues amongst
others, to be considered, are also with respect to the place of posting of an
employee. Thus, there are many factors required to be taken into consideration
when considering various issues.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 submits that the issue
with regard to paragraph-40 of the respondent no.3's affidavit-in-opposition to
the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that promotions at higher levels are
subjective in nature, would have to be read in conjunction with the additional
affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 in compliance with the order dated
18.03.2025 passed in WP(C) 2697/2024. The respondent no.3 was directed to
file an additional affidavit to the query of the Court, as to the feasibility of
production of the relevant records, indicating the objective materials on which
the subjective satisfaction had allegedly been arrived at, while promoting the
selected candidates.
13. Accordingly, in terms of the order dated 18.03.2025, an additional
affidavit was filed by the respondent no.3, wherein it has been stated in
paragraph-4 to 6, as follows :
"4. That it is respectfully submitted that Paragraph 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy Indicates the guiding
parameters for the Promotion Committee for selection of candidates for promotion. The Promotion
Committee conducts an objective assessment based on these parameters in making the final
determination. Notably, the Promotion Committee takes into consideration the performance appraisal
records of the candidates from preceding 6 (Six) years as part of the promotion evaluation. The
candidates are allotted marks under the following parameters:
1. Work Record (ACRs for the immediately preceding Six years).
2. External Assessment.
Page No.# 11/17
3. Seniority.
4. Interview.
5. Further, the Work Record (ACRs) constitute marks allotted towards the following parameters:
1. Performance.
2. Major Contribution.
3. Institution Building.
4. Health.
5. Integrity.
6. General Assessment.
7. Outstanding Work.
8. Fitness.
6. For each of the parameters stated above the Promotion Committee assigns marks, and candidates
are awarded marks based on their performance against these parameters and the total marks obtained
by each candidate are arrived at. The Candidates are then arranged in descending order of the total
marks so obtained by them, and a merit list is accordingly prepared. From the top of the merit list,
number of Candidates equal to the number of available vacancies, are selected for promotion.
Therefore, as established above, there are specific objective parameters that enables the Promotion
Committed to evaluate the candidates for promotions to the Scale-VII cadre. It is respectfully submitted
that the query of this Hon'ble Court stand answered along with the fact that the Petitioner has duly been
evaluated on the above said Parameters. Therefore, there is no question of any challenge by the
Petitioner."
14. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 further submits that the tweaking of the
Promotion Policy by lowering the qualifying service of 2 years to 1.5 years, thereafter to 1 year and
subsequently to 1¾th year, has not been put to challenge and the petitioner has also benefited from the
same in the promotion exercise that had been held for filling up Scale-VII vacancies in 2023-2024, as
he became eligible to be in the consideration zone. Thus, there was no favouritism or ulterior motive or
biasness in changing the number of qualifying years of service required of candidates for promotion.
15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
16. The basic issue to be decided in the present appeal, is whether the criteria for promotion from
Scale -VI to Scale- VII as provided in terms of clause 7.1 and 7.2 of the promotion policy, entails
giving primacy to merit or seniority. Clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the promotion policy states as follows :-
Page No.# 12/17
"7. Broad criteria for promotion:
7.1 The organizational needs, by way of promotions of officers from one scale to another, shall be
fulfilled in such a manner that merit is appropriately recognized while seniority is duly respected in the
extant consistent with efficiency of the Organization
7.2 While promotions to Scale-V and Scale-VII shall be based on the sole criterion of merit. promotions.
upto Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for
measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying the benchmark prescribed under Para 9."
17. Clause 7.1 provides that for promotion from one scale to another, the organisational needs
should be fulfilled/done in such a manner that merit is appropriately recognized while seniority is duly
respected, consistent with efficiency of the organization. In this respect, we do not find any infirmity
with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that clause 7.1 requires a candidate to be
considered on his merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. However, clause 7.2 categorically
provides the emphasis or criteria to be given primacy to, at the time of promotion from scale-VI to
Scale-VII. Clause 7.2 provides that promotion from Scale - VI to Scale-VII shall be based only on the
sole criterion of merit, while promotion up to Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking under
various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying the benchmark
prescribed in para 9. Thus, in our view, for promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII, the criterion to be
given primacy is merit, with seniority being duly respected in terms of clause 7.1.
18. Clause 8.1 of the promotion policy provides for empanelment of candidates for consideration for
promotion to the cadre of Scale - VI and Scale - VII, for those Officers who have completed a
minimum of two years of continuous service in the existing cadre, subject to para 17, which provides
that Officers who are superseded in promotion on 3 (three) consecutive promotion exercises, shall not
be included in the zone of consideration for two immediately succeeding promotion exercises.
19. The changes that were affected by the State respondents in respect of the minimum qualifying
years of service, required for promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII, in our view, does not have any
bearing to the facts of this case, especially when no challenge to the same has been made by the
appellant.
20. Clauses 9, 9.1, 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 provides that a screening interview for promotion to the cadres of
Scale-VI and Scale-VII would be made by a "Screening Committee" comprising of out-side experts of
various fields, as stipulated therein. The "Screening Committee" are to assess the Officers under
various parameters with a total of 10 marks that can be awarded. The petitioner has been given 7.36
marks out of 10 by the "Screening Committee".
Page No.# 13/17
21. Clauses 11.5 and 11.5.2 provides the manner in which the marks are to be awarded for seniority
amongst different batches and between Officers belonging to the same batch. Clauses 11.5, 11.5.1 and
11.5.2 are reproduced herein below, as follows :-
"11.5 Seniority :-
Evaluation for the parameter of seniority shall be done as under:-
11.5.1 The marks for completed years of service will be allotted äs under:-
(a) For the first three completed years of service (le. the minimum eligibility period) In the existing
Scale: Nil.
(b) For each completed year of service (beyond the first three years) in the existing Scale, as per
following table:-
Scale Marks for each completed year of service Maximum
(beyond the first three years) In the existing Scale marks
as on 31 March of the year referred to In para 8.2
11.5.2 To give weightage to Inter-se seniority amongst the officers belonging to the same batch, 0.01
mark will be added in the ascending order, starting with 0.00 for the last officer In the list. If there is
more than one batch in the same year, all such batches of officers shall be arranged according to the
date of selection and marks will be allotted as above."
22. As can be seen from the parameters laid down and the marks to be awarded for seniority, there
cannot be much difference in the marks between the Officers of the same batch, as provided in Clause
11.5.2. The difference in marks amongst Officers of the same batch starts from 0.01 in an ascending
order, starting with 0.00 for the last officer in the list.
23. After the "Screening Committee" held screening of the candidates, the final selection is to be
done by the "Interview & Promotion Committee" in terms of clauses 13.0.1.3, 13.1 and 13.1.1, which
are reproduced herein below, as follows :-
"13.0.1.3 Selection :
The Promotion Committee shall select officers (equal to the number vacancies determined as per
provisions under para 13.0.1.1) for INSITU promotion for placement in Scale VI or Scale VII, as the
case may be, based on the overall merit, suitability, growth potential, length of balance service,
Page No.# 14/17
qualifications, service experience in functional areas and seniority of the empanelled candidates as may
be assessed from the performance appraisal and other records. Such selection of officers for INSITU
promotion by the Promotion Committee shall be final. A list of officers so selected for INSITU
promotions shall be prepared in the order of their inter-se seniority in their cadre, which shall be
forwarded to the Appointing Authority for issuance of INSITU Promotion Order(s).
13.1. Promotion from the cadres of Scale-V to Scale-VI and Scale-VI to Scale-VII:
13.1.1. Eligible Officers, after being Interviewed by the Screening Committee, da per para 9.1, shall
appear for an interview by the Promotion Committee. The Promotion Committee shall, after taking into
account the assessment recommendations of the Screening. Committee; overall merit, suitability, growth
potential, length of balance service, qualifications, service experience in various functional areas and
seniority of the candidates, as may be assessed from the performance appraisal records as well as
personal interview, prepare a list of officers selected for promotion. The list shall be so prepared as to
maintain the Inter-se seniority of the concerned officers in the existing cadres. Such selection of officers
for promotion by the Committee shall be final. The list shall be to the extent of the vacancies available
for the year concerned."
24. We have seen the extract of the records pertaining to the exercise conducted by the Screening
Committee and the marks provided by them to the candidates under various categories. We have also
seen the marks awarded by the "Interview & Promotion Committee" under the various heads i.e. work
record, seniority, screening and interview. We do not find any infirmity in the manner of giving of
marks by the Screening Committee and the "Interview & Promotion Committee". All the marks
awarded are within the permissible limit. No procedure or parameters which are to be followed by the
State respondents have been violated. Further, there is no question of us substituting the marks given by
the 2 Committees, when there is nothing to show that the marks were not fair or not within parameters
set by them. As such, there is no reason for us to interfere with the marks awarded by the concerned
Committees, which has been made under various parameters. The appellant has also not alleged mala
fides against any person and as such, there is nothing to doubt the actions of the members of the
Screening Committee and the "Interview & Promotion Committee".
25. With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent
no. 9 could not have been promoted, as an FIR had been registered against him at the time he was being
considered for promotion, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109], where it has been held that the
benefit of promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceeding is
pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, it must be at the stage when charge sheet has
been furnished to the employee. In the present case, the case was closed prior to any charge-sheet being
filed and as such, there was no ground to refuse promotion to the respondent no. 9. Further, as a closure
report has already been filed in respect of FIR No. 0028 on 19/04/2024 and the transfer by promotion
Page No.# 15/17
had been made on 24/04/2024, there was no illegality committed by the respondents. The respondent
no.9 was also not under suspension when he was considered for promotion. Paragraph 16 & 17 of K.V.
Jankiraman (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow as follows :
"16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover
procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the
Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary
proceedings or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it
can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against
the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-
memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that
stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.
We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations
and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-
memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to
reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The
acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases.
As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately
long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested
persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of
any charge-memo/charge sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are
keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant
evidence and finalize the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the
authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the
suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus
are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that
conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each
other. Those conclusions are as follows:
"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher
scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or
criminal proceedings against an official;
(2) ................................................
(3) ................................................
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on
the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before .
''
17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two
conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the
two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read
to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some
Page No.# 16/17
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said
benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-
memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no
inconsistency in the two conclusions."
26. With regard to the stand of the appellant's counsel that the respondent nos. 15 & 16 having
secured less marks than the appellant under the category "Work record", they could not have
superseded the petitioner, the records and marks that have been produced today show that the
appellant's overall marks is less than the overall marks of the respondent nos. 15 & 16, though the
appellant has higher marks in the "Work Record' category.
27. On perusing the original documents that has been produced before us, we find that all the
candidates have been given marks for seniority in terms of their length of service. There being 4 (four)
different batches of candidates, marks have been awarded out of 10 to all the candidates on the basis of
batch wise seniority.
28. On considering the inter-se seniority of the batch of 2021-2022, where the appellant belongs, in
respect of those candidates who had participated in the selection process and promoted, the giving of
marks on the inter-se seniority marks amongst them, on the assumption that the appellant is the senior
most amongst all the candidates of the 2021-22 batch, we find that the added marks for being senior
most, in terms of Clause 11.5.2 of the Promotion Policy, would not allow the appellant to overtake the
last selected candidate. As such, the overall marks given to the appellant, with or without the inter-se
seniority marks for the 2021-2022 batch, is less than the marks secured by the last selected candidate.
29. In the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and others Vs. Dharmdeo Das [2024 SCC OnLine
SC 1768], the Supreme Court has held that an employee has the right to be considered for promotion,
but does not have the right to be necessarily promoted to the promotional post.
30. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan & Anr. [(2000)
6 SCC 698], the Supreme Court has held that it is a well-known principle of administrative law that
when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from
consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus
with the facts on records, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to
the extent of finding out whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and
not the decision as such.
Page No.# 17/17
31. In the case of Union of India Vs. A.K. Narula [(2007) 11 SCC 10], the Supreme Court held that
it is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala-fide or
arbitrariness, the selection calls for interference. Where a DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and
reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms for all the candidates and there is no
arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the DPC, the Court will not interfere.
32. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has gone minutely into the details of
the official records and has held that the promotion exercise undertaken by the respondents appears to
have been made on objective criterias, in accordance with the promotion policy for the Officers.
33. On considering the fact that the promotion policy under clause 7.1 and 7.2 provides that
promotion to Scale-VII should be on the basis of merit with due respect to be given to seniority, we
find that there has been no violation of the procedure prescribed in the promotion policy. Besides, there
are no allegations of mala fides made by the appellant. The marks awarded to the candidates, are all
with the permissible limit and the same yardstick and norms have been applied to all the candidates
equally. As such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the marks awarded by the experts to the
candidates in the selection process.
34. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of
the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Sukham Digitally signed
by Sukhamay Dey
ay Dey Date: 2025.12.08
15:21:46 +05'30'
