Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Raj Munot vs United India Insurence Co. Ltd.And Ors ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:8721]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1878/2004
Rajendra Raj Munot S/o Shri Devraj, aged 40 years, R/o 103,
Tilaknagar, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 24-Whites Road, Chennai,
through its Assistant General Manager, C/o Regional Office,
Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager (Promoting Authority), United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Gouri Shanker Solanki, Senior Assistant.
4. Ramesh Kumar, Senior Assistant.
5. Dalpat Singh Chouhan, Senior Assistant.
6. Tarawanti Basrani, Senior Assistant.
7. Waheed Khan Gaury, Senior Assistant.
8. Chet Ram Jonwal, Assistant.
9. Kalu Lal Meena, Assistant
Respondent nos. 3 to 9 to be served through the Regional
Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Sahara Chambers, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/02/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby
the private respondent nos. 3 to 9 have been given promotion to
the post of Senior Assistant.
[2025:RJ-JD:8721] (2 of 5) [CW-1878/2004]
2. The facts germane for the present purposes are that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant (T) with the
respondent - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 04.12.1986.
3. On being eligible, the petitioner and other eligible candidates
applied for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and a panel
of personnel showing eligible person for promotion was published
on 10.10.2003, in which petitioner's name was reflected at serial
no.13, while the names of private respondents were shown below
the petitioner.
4. But, when the list of candidates for promotion was issued on
17.11.2003, the petitioner did not find his name, while the private
respondents were promoted. The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 17.11.2003 by asserting that since the petitioner is
senior to private respondents, he should have been accorded
promotion.
5. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner is admittedly senior to the private respondents and,
therefore, non-grant of promotion to the petitioner is illegal and
the promotion order dated 17.11.2003 is arbitrary and against the
settled principle of service jurisprudence, which postulates that
when promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, the seniority
cannot be ignored.
6. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the
communication dated 05.12.2003 (Annexure-5) and submitted
that the petitioner's work appraisal has been outstanding and,
therefore, the respondent-Company has erred in not granting him
promotion.
[2025:RJ-JD:8721] (3 of 5) [CW-1878/2004]
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the cases of R.B. Desai & Anr. vs. S.K. Khanolker &
Ors., reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 1216 (Para No.9); and B.V.
Sivaiah & Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors., reported in 1998
SCC (L&S) 1656 (Para No.18).
8. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent - Company at
the outset submitted that the petitioner's contention is absolutely
misconceived, inasmuch as the criteria for promotion in the
instant case is not seniority-cum-merit. He argued that the
respondent-Company has adopted a transparent policy, in which
weightage has been given to seniority, qualification and work
record and, therefore, the case of a candidate has to be decided
on the basis of criteria laid down in Clause 36 of the policy.
9. Learned counsel argued that the panel (Annexure-3) issued
by the respondent - Company was only a panel of eligible
candidates to be considered for the process of promotion in terms
of Clause 16 of the policy.
10. Inviting Court's attention towards Para No.14 & 15 of the
reply, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the case of
the petitioner so also of the candidates mentioned in panel
(Annexure-3) were considered and thereafter on the basis of work
record, as per Clause 40, the marks were awarded to each of the
candidates. He asserted that it was only thereafter, the list (based
on marks secured by each candidates) was prepared, in which the
private respondents marched ahead of the petitioner and were,
promoted.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2025:RJ-JD:8721] (4 of 5) [CW-1878/2004]
12. A perusal of the scheme of promotion reveals that the
respondent-Company has adopted a systematic and transparent
policy for promotion, which prescribes different criteria viz.,
seniority, qualification and work record. Therefore, the criteria is
not essentially seniority-cum-merit, but one involving mixed
criteria comprising of due weightage to seniority, qualification and
work record.
13. It is to be noted that 40 posts were advertised for promotion
to the post of Senior Assistant, out of which 14 posts were for
unserved category qua which the petitioner had vied.
14. The promotion policy issued by the respondent - Company,
more particularly clause 29 provides that the selection shall be
made on the basis of seniority, qualification and work record.
Clause 36 of the Policy aforesaid, provides for system of appraisal
for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant, according to which
following Scheme of weightage shall operate:-
Criterion Maximum Marks
Seniority 50#
Total 100#
#(B.M. dt. 25.2.1999)
15. Maybe, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.13 in the panel
prepared as per Clause 16, but once his work record was
assessed, vis-a-vis, other candidates, the private respondents
marched ahead of him and thus, they were given promotion.
16. The respondent's assertion made in Para Nos.14 and 15 of
the reply has not been refuted.
[2025:RJ-JD:8721] (5 of 5) [CW-1878/2004]
17. Petitioner's reliance upon communication dated 05.12.2003
(Annexure-5) is misplaced, as the same was issued by the
Assistant Divisional Manager and not by the Committee
constituted under Clause 40 of the policy. Simply because the
Assistant Divisional Manager has rated the petitioner to be
outstanding while requesting the Committee to review his case,
the petitioner cannot claim that even the Committee constituted
under Clause 40 of the Policy ought to have treated the petitioner
outstanding. Because, ultimately, the marks qua work record are
to be given by the competent committee as per the criteria fixed
under Clause 40 of the Policy.
18. The judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are essentially the judgments, which
deal with the situation when promotion criteria was seniority-cum-
merit, whereas in the present case, the criteria is not seniority-
cum-merit. Hence, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner are not applicable.
19. It is not the case set up by the petitioner that the total
marks secured by him were more than marks secured by the
private respondents.
20. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
4-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
