Madras High Court
Supervisors Union, Bhel/Bap/Ranipet ... vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bhel, ... on 21 June, 2002
Author: V. Kanagaraj
Bench: V. Kanagaraj
ORDER
1. Petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and 2nd respondents to frame detailed and exhaustive rules relating to promotion from one post to another in the same cadre or to the higher cadre by prescribing definite eligibility criteria like qualifying years of service, qualifications and to provide a mechanism for assessment and performance general suitability and potential for higher responsibility with in build right to represent in case of adverse remarks or comments during assessments.
Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for consideration, on a perusal of affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner what comes to be known is that the grievance of the petitioner is that acquiring promotion in BHEL is merely a chance and not based on well defined promotion procedures; that except for corporate cadres all other promotions are time bound only; that the corporate personnel management arbitrarily specifies the percentage of employees to be promoted to within the cadre and the cadre to cadre without any statistical or managerial backup; that the arbitrary fixing of percentage of promotion is left with the whims and fancies of the authorities concerned which leads to arbitrariness in the matter of promotion; that the personnel manual which prescribes the promotion policy and the rules regulating the promotion of the employees of the BHEL is defective and the proclaimed objectives are denied to the employees; that no proclaimed guidelines/rules are provided for the promotion of the employees.
2. The writ petitioner would further point out that the department promotion committee for considering the promotion would broadly include factors such as qualifications, performance, general suitability and potential for higher responsibility and the rules are silent as to who should assess the performance, general suitability or potential of the employees and the manner such assessment, since there is no definite guidelines or rules for assessing of the same. Pointing out such other grey errors in the promotional matters at various levels the petitioner union would ultimately pray to the relief extracted supra.
3. In consideration of the facts and circumstances brought forth, and upon hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it further comes to be known that the petitioner union has not been heard by the respondents in spite of repeated representations made on their part in person and through their advocate and therefore, this Court is of the view that a direction issued to the first and second respondents in the following manner will serve the ends of justice at the moment.
4. The first and second respondents shall consider the earlier representation made on the part of the petitioner union dated 9.7.2001 and the subsequent advocate notice issued on 5.3.2002 on the very same subject shall be considered in the manner that it is expected to be considered and dispose of the representation on merits and in accordance with law with an opportunity for the petitioner union to be heard on the subject and in further consideration of the position of law on the subject within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the representations of the petitioner as aforementioned, let not the status quo that prevails as on date be disturbed.
In result,
(i)the writ petition is disposed of in the above manner.
(ii)However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.