Kerala High Court
E.M.Meenakshi vs United India Insurance Company on 18 December, 2011
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 22086 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
E.M.MEENAKSHI,
EMPLOYEE NO.15767, BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
REP. BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, 24
WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600014.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22086 of 2012 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESULT OF THE RE-PROMOTIONAL
EXAMINATION, 2011 HELD BY THE RESPONDENT DATED
18.12.2011
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
DATED 12.7.2012
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------------------
W.P. (C) NO. 22086 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as a Branch Manager of the respondent Company is before this Court in view of the denial of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager Scale-III and against the course and proceedings whereby the candidature has been refused to be considered in respect of subsequent years, inspite of the relaxation of norms brought about by virtue of an amendment of the rules for selection.
2. The petitioner is a member of the SC community and was recruited to the post of Assistant/Typist on 5/2/1980. By virtue of the subsequent promotions obtained, the petitioner is now functioning as Branch Manager Scale-II and is eligible to be promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Scale-III.
3. As per the relevant recruitment rules, the aspirants for promotion have to clear a written test, which came to be introduced with effect from the year 2006-07. Though the petitioner appeared for the tests in the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, she did not get the prescribed minimum of 45% marks (for the candidates belongs to the SC/ST community). By virtue of the stipulation in the relevant W.P. (C) NO. 22086 of 2012 2 rules, a person who loses the written test consecutively for '3' times is not entitled to participate in the next test for period of '2' years. In the meanwhile, the minimum qualifying marks for promotion for the SC/ST candidates came to be relaxed and reduced to '31.5%', as per Ext.P2 Circular dated 12/7/2012. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having already obtained 32.33 marks in the test for the year 2011-12, as revealed from Ext.P1, is liable to be promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Scale-III. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the respondent Company has wrongly denied the opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the written test for the year 2012-13 by virtue of the bar contained in the earlier rules, stipulating a higher norm for selection.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed, that the course and proceedings pursued by the respondents are quite in conformity with the relevant recruitment rules and the promotion policy. As per para '9.2.3' of the Promotion Policy, to make one qualified in the written test, a minimum of 50% marks is necessary in the case of general candidates; whereas in the case of SC/ST community, it is 45%. Admittedly, the petitioner could secure only less than the minimum extent of 45% (SC/ST) and as such, the petitioner could not be called for interview for promotion to the post in question. This was the position in the years 2009-10, the next year W.P. (C) NO. 22086 of 2012 3 2010-11 and also the subsequent year 2011-12. Under the promotion policy, if a person loses the written test consecutively for 3 times, there is a bar in participating any further test for a period of 2 years. By virtue of said clause, it was not possible to permit the petitioner to participate the next process of selection for the year '2012-2013' and hence it is contended that there is no merit or bonafides in the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent as well, in detail.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the rigour of the norms for selection; particularly with regard to the minimum marks to be obtained by a member belonging to a 'SC/ST' community came to be relaxed/reduced from 45% to 31.5%, as per the amendment to the rules brought into effect from 12/7/2012. Though the selection process for the year 2012-13 was after commencement of the above amended rules, by virtue of the disabling clause in the promotion policy rules, debarring a candidate from participating in the subsequent selection for a period of 2 years if he/she failed in the written test consecutively for 3 times, the petitioner could not be permitted to participating the selection process for the year 2012-13. But on considering the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner admittedly secured more marks than the present minimum qualifying marks, in the earlier rounds of selection as borne Ext.P1. But W.P. (C) NO. 22086 of 2012 4 the same cannot be made applicable to the present selection process, as the petitioner has to prove her mettle in the concerned selection process as and when the same is conducted. The bar, if at all any, preventing the candidates from competing in the selection process with reference to the minimum qualifying marks, has to be applied in relation to the actual extent of such marks prescribed in the 'concerned promotion policy', which prevailed at the relevant time. Whether the same yardstick adopted in the earlier promotion policy could be made applicable to the subsequent process as well, even after the amendment of the rules reducing the norm, is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority of the respondent Company. This Court however does not propose to express anything in this regard on merit, as the matter requires to be considered at the first instance by the respondent Company/Competent authority.
7. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the promotion policy has been formulated by the 'GIPSA', which is the monitoring agency of all the four Public Sector Insurance Companies in India and that its decision is being implemented by the respondent Company as well. As such, if it have any change is required, the same has to be brought to the notice of the GIPSA. As it stands so, it may not be fir and proper for this Court to intercept at this stage, before the matter is dealt with by the GIPSA/competent authority; which otherwise may cause far reaching W.P. (C) NO. 22086 of 2012 5 consequences throughout India, not only in the case of the respondent Company, but also with regard to the other three public sector Insurance Companies; namely The New India Insurance Company Limited, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and also The National Insurance Company Limited.
8. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to bring the grievance so as to enabling her to participate in the next process of selection, based on the amended rules, by filing a representation before the respondent. If any such representation is filed before the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be forwarded to the competent authority and a decision shall be taken in accordance with law, in the light of above observations, at the earliest at any rate within 3 months thereafter.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE AS