Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M.L.Verma vs Union Of India And Ors ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:42428]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2996/2001
M.L. Verma S/o Shri R.G. Verma, aged about 56 years, Presently
working as Manager, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, 1 & 2,
Rawatbhata, District-Chhitorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Atomic
Energy, Govt. of India, Anushakti Bhawan, CSM Marg, Mumbai.
2. The Chairman- cum- Manging Director, Neclear Power
Corporation of India (NPCIL) VIth Floor, V.S. Bhawan, Anushakti
Nagar, Mumbai-94.
3. The Director (Personnel), Nuclear Power Corporation of India,
(NPCIL) Belapur Bhawan, Navi Mumbai.
4. The Project Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, 1 & 2,
P.O. Anushakti, Rawatbhata (Distt-Chittorgarh).
5. Shri G.G. Kulkarni, Senior Manager, (P & IR), V.S. Bhawan,
Bombay.
6. Shri M.A. Saleem, Senior Manager (P & IR), MAPS, Chennai.
7. Shri T.V. George, Senior Manager (P & IR), Anushakti Nagar,
Rawatbhata.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas with
Mr. Deepak Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari for
Mr. Mukul Singhvi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/09/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and after calling for the
original record of Screening Committee held in November,
2000 the official respondents by way of appropriate writ,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (2 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
order or direction may kindly be directed to grant
retrospective promotion to the petitioner on the post of
Senior Manager (P&IR) from November, 2000 from which
date, the juniors (Respondents No. 5 to 7) were promoted
and the petitioner was denied his due promotion on the said
post, while he was eligible to get such promotion. The
consequential benefits be also granted to the petitioner
retrospectively. Also the promotion orders (Annexure 3 to
Annexure 5) of respondents no.5 to 7 may kindly be
quashed. Any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner
is entitled may also be granted to him. The costs be also
allowed to the petitioner."
2. None has put in appearance for respondents No.5 to 7
despite being served.
3. The facts are that the petitioner was originally a Government
employee as Class-I officer in the Department of Atomic Energy.
However, after the incorporation of respondent No.2-Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), the services of the
petitioner were absorbed in NPCIL.
4. After absorption, he was posted as Manager (P&IR) with the
Rajashtan Atomic Power Station at Rawatbhata. In the year 1996,
a DPC was conducted for promotions from the post of 'Manager' to
'Senior Manager' and the petitioner, being entitled, was called
upon and even appeared before the DPC held on 26.12.1996. The
petitioner was found 'fit' and was even empanelled for promotion.
But he was not afforded promotion on the count that no
sanctioned vacant post was available at that point of time.
Although the panel of successful candidates was kept live for a
period of one and half year but on the pretext that no vacancy
arose during the said complete period, the panel lapsed.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (3 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
5. Again in the year 2000, a fresh process was undertaken for
the purposes of promotion and the petitioner being held eligible,
was called for interview on 17.11.2000. But the petitioner was not
empanelled in the select list and was hence, not promoted.
6. Aggrieved of the above, the present writ petition has been
filed.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the action of
the respondent-Department is malafide and with the clear intent
not to promote the petitioner. Despite the petitioner been found fit
by the DPC in the year 1996, he was declared to be 'not fit' in the
year 2000 without any valid reason.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the garb of the promotions made on 'merit-cum-seniority' basis,
persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted despite the
petitioner having no adverse remark whatsoever, during his
complete tenure of service and despite he having completed the
requisite period of five years as a Manager. Furthermore, there
was no reason as to why the seniority of the petitioner was
completely ignored even if the promotions were to be made on
'merit-cum-seniority' basis.
9. Learned counsel submitted that firstly, there was/were no
policy/rules inacted/adopted by respondent-NPCIL providing for
promotions on 'merit-cum-seniority' basis. Secondly, even if it is
assumed that the promotions were to be made on 'merit-cum-
seniority' basis, as is the settled position of law, the seniority
cannot be completely ignored even while adopting the said
process.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (4 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
10. In support of his above submission, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah & Ors.
Vs. K. Addankl Babu & Ors.; AIR 1998 SC 2565.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that although no rules
were ever notified by NPCIL to govern the promotions but even if
it is assumed that the norms as laid down vide communication
dated 12.07.1996 would govern the promotions, the said norms
themselves provide for relaxation/concession to SC/ST candidates.
The same definitely had not been complied with by the respondent
Authorities as the petitioner being a SC candidate, was entitled for
the said relaxation/concession.
12. Learned counsel while relying upon office order dated
14.09.2001 (Annexure-13) submitted that one Mr. V.K. Saxena
was appointed as Senior Manager vide the said order without
following any process and without even been recommended by the
DPC. Meaning thereby, there were no specific norms governing the
promotions of the Managers with NPCIL. Further, while relying
upon office order dated 06.05.2002 (Annexure-14), learned
counsel submitted that two incumbents as reflected in the said
order were also Junior to the petitioner but were promoted
without advertising the vacancies. The discrimination qua the
petitioner was hence, writ large.
13. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents raised the
following grounds:
(i) NPCIL being a public sector enterprise is governed by its own
rules, regulations and norms and is not governed by the
rules/norms laid down by the Government. Therefore, the rules of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (5 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
relaxation/concession as applicable to Government employee
would not apply to the employees of NPCIL and the petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of the same.
(ii) NPCIL has laid down its own norms for promotions which
provide for two processes: a fast track process and a normal track
process. So far as the promotions under challenge are concerned,
they were made after adopting the normal track process and as
per the DPC convened in accordance with the said process, the
petitioner was not found fit and hence, was not accorded
promotion. Respondents No.5 & 6 were rightly accorded promotion
on basis of their merit, the criterion for promotion being 'merit-
cum-seniority'.
(iii) So far as the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year
1996 is concerned, there was no vacancy available at that point of
time and hence, the petitioner, despite finding place in merit,
could not be accorded promotion.
14. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the Apex
Court judgment passed in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta &
Ors. Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 3256.
15. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the ground raised by learned counsel for the respondents to the
effect that the Government norms as prescribed qua SC/ST
candidates shall not apply to the employees of NPCIL is totally
fallacious. Counsel submitted that in paragraph 7 of the reply,
while reproducing/describing the normal track procedure, last
portion of the said procedure has intentionally been omitted. The
normal track procedure as prescribed in the norms specifically
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (6 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
provides for relaxation to SC/ST candidates and further, for a
separate empanellment of such candidates. The complete action of
the respondents being illegal, malafide and contrary to its own
norms, deserves interference and the petitioner deserves to be
granted promotion with effect from year 1996 when he was
declared fit.
16. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
17. Coming on to the issue as to whether NPCIL being a Public
Sector Enterprise, would not be governed by the
guidelines/rules/laws as laid down by the Government of India for
promotions of employees, reference to the norms as relied upon
by counsel for the respondents would be apt.
18. Clause 3.5 of guidelines dated 01.04.1995 (reviewed on
01.04.1998) governing the promotions of staff of NPCIL provides
as under:
"Seniority-cum-fitness quota
Vacancies are filled through a quota system predominantly
merit-based with some through seniority-cum-fitness criteria.
Government directives on reservation e.g. for SC/ST
candidates in award of promotion are incorporated."
19. Norms dated 12.07.1996 adopted by NPCIL provides for the
fixation of seniority as under:
"Seniority
For vacancy based promotion, the seniority shall be decided with
reference to the place in the merit list prepared by DPC. All fit
candidates shall be empanelled in a common list of fast and
normal track candidates in order of merit and each cadre and
post with the reservation done as per the Government
directive for SC/ST candidates."
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (7 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
20. A bare perusal of the above clauses clearly reflect that the
Government directives qua reservation for SC/ST candidates were
to apply for the NPCIL employees both for seniority and promotion
purposes. The ground raised by learned counsel for the
respondents therefore, is held to be not tenable.
21. Coming on to the procedure as adopted for promotions in
question, the normal track procedure provides as under:
"2) Normal Track
The same DPC shall interview each eligible candidate called and
arrive at an overall performance marks based on the following
credits/weightages.
(i) Interview marks : 40 % credit
(ii) Performance Appraisal Rating : 40 % credit
` - Weightage for (out of 10 marks)
outstanding rating 10 for each grading
very good : 07
good : 06
calculated for last four years : maximum credit= 40
(iii) Total length of service : 20% credit
(two marks shall be allotted for each year of service and the
total secured to be limited to 20).
Those who score 50% and above shall be empanelled. SC/
ST candidates shall be given 10% relaxation i.e. such
candidates if otherwise eligible, shall be separately
empanelled if they scored atleast 40% aggregate."
22. A bare perusal of the above procedure which has been
admitted by the respondents to have been adopted, reflects that
the same also provides for 10% relaxation to SC/ST candidates
and further, for separate empanellment of such candidates if they
scored minimum 40% in aggregate.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (8 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
23. As per the score-sheet placed on record by the respondents
along with their written submissions, petitioner scored 63 marks
out of 100. The same is clearly more than 40% aggregate marks.
Further, the said score-sheet clearly reflects that the petitioner
was the only SC candidate in the complete list of 12 candidates
who were interviewed by the DPC. All the other candidates
belonged to the General category.
24. Meaning thereby, the alleged normal track procedure as
averred to have been adopted by the respondents was clearly
adopted partially and not in true spirit. Although the marking
seems to have been made in terms of the procedure prescribed
but then, it is clear that neither any relaxation was given to a SC
candidate nor was any separate panel qua the reserved category
candidates was made.
25. This Court is of the clear opinion that had a separate panel
been made qua the reserved category candidates, the petitioner
being the sole candidate belonging to the reserved category,
would definitely have stood at merit No.1 in the said list/panel.
26. Further, as observed above, the Government directives on
reservation qua SC/ST candidates in award of promotion were also
to apply to the employees of NPCIL. As per the procedure
prescribed for vacancy based promotion, the seniority was to be
decided with reference to the place in the merit list prepared by
DPC. All fit candidates were to be empanelled in a common list of
fast and normal track candidates in order of merit, and the
reservation was to be applied as per the Government directives for
SC/ST candidates.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (9 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
27. Meaning thereby, the merit list was to be prepared after
providing for the reservations as per the Government directives.
Evidently, no reservation for SC/ST candidates has been applied in
the present matter. Had the same been applied, the petitioner
being the sole candidate belonging to the reserved category,
would definitely have been promoted.
28. So far as the judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal
Maheta (supra) as relied upon by counsel for the respondents is
concerned, this Court is not required to deal into the issue
whether the promotions in question were made on 'seniority-cum-
merit' or 'merit-cum-seniority' basis. As this Court has held the
petitioner to be entitled for promotion on the basis of reservation,
the aspect of merit-cum-seniority would not be of relevance in the
present matter.
29. In view of the above overall analysis, this Court is of the
clear opinion that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as a
Senior Manager and has illegally been denied the same. The
present writ petition is hence, allowed.
30. The petitioner is hereby held entitled to be promoted on the
post of 'Senior Manager' with effect from the date respondents
No.5 to 7 (juniors to the petitioner) were promoted. The petitioner
shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits with effect
from the said date. The petitioner having since retired, would be
entitled to the revised pension (if applicable) now to be computed
in terms of the present order.
31. Appropriate orders of promotion and consequential benefits
be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42428] (10 of 10) [CW-2996/2001]
the date of receipt of the copy of the present order. The
consequential monetary benefits be also granted to the petitioner
within the said period.
32. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
280-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:43:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
