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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 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) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:16:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)