Telangana High Court
B.Raju, Hyd vs Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore And 2 ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 32233 OF 2013
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be belonging to ST community. He was appointed as Deputy Engineer (E-II) in Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) on 23.10.1989 and got promotions as Senior Engineer (E-III) in 1994; as Deputy Manager (E-IV) in 1998 and as Manager (E-V) in 2004. He contends that he was eligible to hold the post of Manager (E-V) in the year 2002 itself, but was not promoted for four times. He also Contends that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (E-VI) in July 2008, but was not promoted and he was denied promotion as DGM in 2009, 2010 and 2011, instead some of his juniors were promoted respectively. He subsequently, was promoted as DGM (E-VI) on 29.06.2012. 1.1. It is the case of petitioner that in view of denial of promotion for the years mentioned above, petitioner made a representation to the Chairman & Managing Director, Director (HR), General Manager, Hyderabad, for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager E-6 on 21.06.2011, followed by representation dated 06.09.2011 to the National Commission for SC & ST. Respondent/employer submitted reply to the Commission on 27.09.2011. On 2 12.10.2011, the National Commission forwarded the reply to the BEL for information and comments. For the same, respondent/employer submitted reply and petitioner filed rejoinder. After hearing both the parties, the Commission advised the Chairman & Managing Director to look into the case and report compliance.
1.2. According to petitioner, he was given promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager on 29.06.2012. On receipt of which, petitioner and his wife made several representations to different authorities seeking to give effect to his promotion from 2008. He further contended that respondent employer had not implemented reservations in promotions as per the Constitution and policy laid down for promotions. It is stated, if promotion is given effect from 2008, he would have been occupied the post of DGM E-VI cadre earlier than what he got now. There is no ST candidate either junior or senior in promotion cadre. Petitioner states that employer has not maintained roster for effecting promotions in Higher Category. The percentage of vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes i.e. 15 ½ and 7½ . He also contended that he was transferred to Machilipatnam and Chennai with a view to harass him. 1.3. Petitioner contends that had the BEL implemented the rule of reservation in promotions as enunciated by the 3 Government of India from time to time, he would have got promotion as Manager (E-V) in 2002 itself and would have got the next promotions much earlier. It is stated, Promotion Policy in BEL is as under:
The Executive Posts in BEL are grouped as:
Sl.no Clusters E 1 C-I E-I 2 C-II E-II, E-III, E-IV 3 C-III E-V, E-VI, E-VI A 4 C-IV E-VII Promotion within the same cluster: E-II to E-III- 3 1/2 years E-III to E-IV - 3 years E-V to E-VI- 4 years E-VI to E-VIA- 2 years E-VIA to E-VII-2 years
Clause-9 of the promotion policy provides: Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, instructions on reservations for SC/ST from the Government of India received from time to time, shall be followed. In respect of promotions from E-V to E-
VI A and E-VI to E-VII, the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by Chairman and Managing Director, Functional Director as Member and Director (Personnel) as Member Secretary will consider the cases.
2. The case of respondent Bharat Electronics Limited is that as per the orders issued by the 1st respondent-Corporate Office dated 12.05.1992, Grade E-II and above are included in 4 Group 'A' which fact is not disputed by petitioner. The Promotion Policy for Executives in BEL was issued vide Office Order dated 22.02.1989. The relevant portion is:
" 4.3.5 RESERVATION:
Reservation for SC/ST candidates shall be as per the Government of India guidelines applicable from time to time.
The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued O.M. No. 36012/17/88-Estt (SCT), dated 25.04.1989, to all the Ministries/Departments regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in posts filled by promotion applicability to grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment does not exceed 66 2/3%. It is as below:
"The question of enlarging the scope of the existing scheme of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion by extending it to grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment is more than 66 2/3% has been under the consideration of Government".
Under the existing orders contained in the Department of Personal & A.R. O.M. No. 36021/7/75-Estt, dated 25.02.1976, reservations have been provided at 15% and 7 ½% of the vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively (i) in promotions through limited departmental competitive examinations in Group B, C & D, (ii) in promotions by selection in Groups B, C & D and from Group B to the lowest rank of Group-A and (iii) promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness in all Groups i.e., Groups A, B,C & D (in all these cases). In grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 66-2/3%. It has now been decided in partial modification of the above-mentioned O.M. that reservations in posts by promotion under the existing scheme as indicated above should be made applicable to all the grades or services, to which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%.
The above instructions take effect from the date of issue of these orders except where a Select List for promotion under the relevant orders has already been prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and in the case of selections made through limited 5 departmental competitive examination, the relevant exam has already been held.
Ministry of Finance etc, are requested to bring the above decision to the notice of all concerned."
2.1. From the above O.M. dated 25.04.1989, it is clear that where the direct recruitment exceeds 76%, no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be followed. Recruitment Rules for Executive & Non-Executive Posts (as amended) were issued by the 1st Respondent-BEL vide Office Order No. HO/738/075, dated 29.03.2024. The relevant Rule says -
" 6.0 RECRUITMENT TO EXECUTICE POSTS (Group 'A' & 'B' posts ):
6.1 Recruitment of Probationary Engineers / Officers in E-II grade on All-India basis through Open Competition:
Recruitment to Executive posts I E-II grade will be processed by the Corporate Office (Recruitment Division). For the post of Member Research Staff, the recruitment activity shall be process by the concerned CRLS.
For selection on All-India basis through open competition, the posts to be filled will be duly notified through the Company's website, newspaper advertisements, Company notice boards, etc. 6.2 Source of Recruitment:
The selection will be made on All-India basis through open competition.
6.1.3 Selection methodology:
All recruitments to E-II grade shall be through Written Test followed by interview".6
2.2. It is clear from the recruitment policy to Group-A posts that recruitment to all the posts of Group-A is only by Direct Recruitment and there is no recruitment by promotion.
However, the in-service candidates also compete in the direct recruitment. It means the recruitment to the post of Group-A posts is 100% by direct recruitment. If that is the case, as per O.M. dated 25.04.1989 referred to supra, the question of following reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will not arise as the direct recruitment exceeds 75%. So also, the question of maintaining roster for the reserved category candidates will not arise.
3. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Sai Prasen, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sahani v. Union of India 1 held that reservations in promotions should be followed. As a result, by issuing 77th Amendment Act, 1995, the Parliament incorporated Clause 4(A) by amending Article 16 of the Constitution of India for providing reservation in promotions by the State. The said Amendment came into force with effect from 17.06.1995. As a consequence, the Central Government decided to continue reservation in promotions for SC/STs in services/posts under Central 1 1992 Supp(3) SCC 217 7 Government beyond 15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of the above two categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages of reservation vide office Memo dated 13.08.1997. It is further contended that had the respondent-BEL implemented the policy of reservations for SCs. & STs. in promotions, petitioner would have got promotion as Manager (E-V) in 2002 and as DGM (E-VI) in July 2008 itself.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent BEL submits that a total of 2178 Executives are working in Cluster-III in BEL, out of which 1147 are under General Category i.e. 52.66%; 376 are in OBC i.e. 17.26%; 487 are under SC Category i.e. 22.36% and 168 are under ST Category i.e., 7.71%. In the Grade in which petitioner was working at the time of filing of this Writ Petition i.e. E-VI Category, 131 Executives were working in SC Category i.e. 25% and 30 Executives were working in ST Category i.e. 7%. By June, 2019 in E-VI Category, 139 Executives of SC category i.e. 23.05% and 49 Executives of ST category i.e. 8.13% were working. Therefore, it is contended, sufficient representation of SCs and STs are working. Further, petitioner is already working as Deputy General Manager as on the date of filing Writ Petition and he was promoted to E-VI from 29.06.2012 after accepting the promotion of E-VI, filing the present Writ Petition in 2013 8 inter alia seeking promotion to the cadre of E-V with back date, is hit by delay and latches. Mere submission of representation does not create any right on petitioner to seek relief after efflux of five years. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly held that Seniority or Promotion is to be challenged within six months. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that he is entitled to E-VI from 2008 in 2012 is not maintainable.
5. For better understanding, Article 16 of the Constitution is echoed as under:
"16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State are not adequately represented in the services under the 9 State. [In article 16 of the Constitution after clause 4, thefollowing clauses shall be inserted through Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995] (4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent, reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.
6. It is to be noted that Article 16 discusses equality in opportunity of employment for all the citizens. There are 6 Clauses under this Article. Starting Clauses 1 and 2 talk about equality of opportunity and Clauses 3 to 6 are exceptions of Clause 1 and 2.
Clause 1 states that there shall be equal opportunity for the citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. This clause does not provide the right to employment; it only gives the right to equal opportunity in case of any available vacancy in public employment. This clause also applies to promotions or termination and other aspects of state 10 employment. This equality is applied only to the people who are applying for the same employment opportunity or are working in the same post.
Clause 2 states that there will be no discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence in employment. The state cannot discriminate only on the basis of the above criteria.
6.1. It is stated in Clause 3 of Article 16 that nothing in this Article shall prevent Parliament from making any law which prescribes to the citizens who are appointed to any office under the State in regard to any requirements as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
6.2. Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution provides for the reservation of services under the State in favor of the backward class of citizens. Backward class includes Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
6.3. Clause (5) exempts a law from the application of clauses (1) and (2), which require the incumbent of any office to be religiously qualified for appointment.
6.4. Clause (6) was added to Article 16 by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, which came into effect on January 14, 2019, and empowers the State to make various provisions for reservation in appointments of members of the Economically 11 Weaker Sections (EWS) of society to government posts. However, these provisions must be within the 10% ceiling, in addition to the existing reservations.
7. Learned Senior Counsel referred to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to point out the principle that reservations for SC/STs. should be followed in the matter of promotions. There is no dispute with regard to this principle. In fact, BEL has not disputed this principle and on the other hand, it is submitted that BEL is implementing reservations for SCs./STs. Up to the category of E-V as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time. In these circumstances, the question that falls for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this Writ Petition?
8. It is submitted that this Writ Petition fails for more than one reasons. When it is the case of the petitioner that he had to get promotion as Manager (E-V) in 2002 itself if reservation policy is implemented, but got promotion only in July 2004, why he kept silent for two years? No plausible explanation is forthcoming. Likewise, according to petitioner, he has to get promotion as DGM in July 2008 itself if reservation policy is implemented, but was promoted only on 29.06.2012 and about 14 of his juniors were promoted, why he kept silent 12 without questioning the same for about Four years; no acceptable explanation is adduced. Petitioner has not questioned denial of his promotion to E-V cadre at least while working in that cadre. It is only after he got promotion to E-VI cadre in 2012, he filed this Writ Petition in 2013 seeking retrospective promotion / retrospective seniority in the cadre of E-V. It is settled principle that Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt - The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep. Hence, it appears that petitioner approached this Court with inordinate delay entitling him for no relief.
9. Another failure of petitioner is, though he averred in the writ affidavit that as many as fourteen of his juniors were promoted stealing march over him in seniority to the posts in the Cadre of E-V and E-VI, he has not chosen to array them as respondents. If the contentions of petitioner are accepted and he is ordered to be given promotions/seniority with retrospective effect, it will affect the above 14 employees, who were promoted earlier to him and it tantamount to condemn them without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
10. According to O.M. No. 36012/17/88-Estt (SCT), dated 25th April 1989 issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India where the direct recruitment exceeds 75%, no reservation for Scheduled Castes and 13 Scheduled Tribes be followed. As per the Recruitment Rules for Executive & Non-Executive Posts (as amended) issued vide Office Order No. HO/738/015, dated 29.03.2024 recruitment to Executive Posts (Group 'A' & 'B' posts) be on All India basis through Open Competition.
11. Yet another reason for rejection of the claim of petitioner is, as per the data furnished by BEL in their counter affidavit, out of the total of 2178 Executives working in Cluster- III in BEL, 1147 are under General Category i.e. 52.66%; 376 are in OBC i.e. 17.26%; 487 are under SC Category i.e. 22.36% and 168 are under ST Category i.e. 7.71%. In the grade in which petitioner was working at the time of filing of this Writ Petition i.e. E-VI Category, 131 Executives were working in SC Category i.e. 25% and 30 Executives were working in ST Category i.e. 7%. By June, 2019 in E-VI Category, 139 Executives of SC category i.e., 23.05% and 49 Executives of ST category i.e., 8.13% were working. From this data it is clear that there is sufficient representation of SC/ST employees and hence, not following the reservation for SC/ST in the matter of promotions cannot be faulted with.
12. For the above reasons, Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14
13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th October, 2025 ksld