Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/Oshivalingappa Banajiger vs The Senior Divisional Manager And Ors on 3 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194
WP No. 102400 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.102400 OF 2013 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BANAJIGER
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANTLIC OF INDIA
CITY BRANCH-I GULBARGA
R/O PLOT NO.69 SANTRUPTI BANK COLONY,
NEAR CHANDRASHEKHAR PATILSTADIUM,
GULBARGA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RENUKA
Location: HIGH 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
COURT OF LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA
POST BOX NO.43, RAICHUR
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
SWAROOP PLAZA, TALAKWADI, BELGAUM
3. THE ZONAL MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE
SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194
WP No. 102400 of 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 14.09.2012 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-L AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE MANAGEMENT FOR GIVING
PROMOTION TO THE HIGH GRADE ASSISTANT TO THE
PETITIONER W.E.F. 2004-05; ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER FOUND ENTITLED TO BE
AWARDED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned petition is filed challenging the endorsement dated 14.09.2012 issued by the respondents vide Annexure-L and consequently a mandamus is sought against respondents to give promotion to petitioner in the cadre of High Grade Assistant w.e.f. 2004-2005.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in respondents - Corporation in 1990. Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of promotion to High Grade Assistant under the impugned endorsement dated 14.09.2012 on the ground that he is found to be not suitable, is under challenge.
3. The respondents have tendered appearance and filed statement of objection. The respondents along with the statement of objection have placed on record all relevant documents relating to the process undertaken by the Promotional Committee while declining petitioner's promotion to the next promotional post of High Grade Assistant. All relevant documents are produced, which are evidenced at Annexures-R1 to R13. The respondents have contended that petitioner having secured lesser marks, was not eligible to be subjected to interview and accordingly his promotion is denied based on recommendations of Promotional Committee.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner reiterating the grounds would point out that respondents -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 could not have subjected petitioner to a test as he had served for 10 years and therefore, he was entitled for exemption from appearing for test. He would also contend that denial of promotion is contrary to LIC Staff Regulations, 1960.
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents has taken this Court through the relevant Rules and Regulations relating to promotion to High Grade Assistant. He has countered petitioner's claim that petitioner was subjected to test. He would point out that this statement is factually incorrect. To refute these allegations, he has taken this Court through Annexure-R7 to substantiate that petitioner having completed 10 years of service, was exempted from taking a test. Referring to the method of selection for promotion and the role of the Promotional Committee, he has taken this Court through relevant clauses of the respondents - Corporations' Promotion Instructions, 1987.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013
6. Heard the counsels on record. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the material on record.
7. Before this Court delves into the petitioner's grievances relating to denial of promotion, this Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant provisions of the Promotion Instructions, 1987 pertaining to Clause Nos.3 and 4 of Employees of LIC (for short '1987 Promotion Instructions'). Regulation Nos.5 and 6 of 1987 Promotion Instructions is extracted, which reads as under:
"(5) Higher Grade Assistants:
All Section Heads, Stenographers, Assistants and all other employees in the scale of Section Heads and Assistants are eligible to compete for the post of HGAs subject to conditions mentioned in the Schedule. All those in the scale of Section Heads without any condition of minimum service are eligible o compete for the post of HGA. For those in the scale of Assistants with 5 years' of service, acquisition of prescribed technical qualification or a pass in the departmental tests is necessary. The technical qualifications to be -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 acquired shall be one mentioned in Note (a) of the Schedule. Employees in the scale of Assistant with at least 10 years service in that scale are allowed to compete for promotion without the requirement of passing Departmental Test or of acquisition of technical qualifications.
(6) Higher Grade Assts.(Stenographers) & Higher Grade Assistants (Projectionists):
Stenographers with 5 years service as such are eligible to compete for the post of HGA (Steno). Similarly, Projectionists with 5 years services Projectionists are eligible to compete for the post of HGA (Projectionists)."
8. Regulation No.6(2) is also relevant. The same is extracted, which reads as under:
"(2) Selection for promotion to the cadre of HGAS HGA (Stenos), HGA (Projectionists), HGA (Prograrmmers), HGA (Data Processing), Assistants, Record Clerks & Sepoys/Watch men/Liftmen:
A single panel of all eligible candidates, viz., those who ha e passed the test and those -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 who have been exempted from the test wherever prescribed will be prepared on the basis of total marks gained on the three counts namely, (i) seniority (ii) qualifications and (iii) work record. Out of the panels prepared, candidates in the order of merit equal to 5 times the number of vacancies will be called for interview."
9. The role of Promotion Committee is contemplated under Regulation No.8. The same is extracted, which reads as under:
"8. Promotion Committees:
On receipt of the selection panel, the respective promoting authorities will constitute separate promotion committees for considering promotion to various cadres in accordance with the criteria for promotion laid down by the Staff Regulations. One member of the promotion committee should invariably be a member belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 1 rites. The Promotion Committee shall interview the candidates in the selection par el and submit its report to the Promoting Authority."-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013
10. The next crucial Regulation, which is applicable to the present case on hand is Regulation Nos.10(3)(d). The relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under:
"(d) An employee with below average work record hall not be eligible for pro motion and should be excluded from the selection panel of employees to be called for interview.
Marks below 15 out of 25, 18 out of 30 and 24 out of 40 will be considered as below average in case of a Class III employee. Marks below 15 out of 40 will be considered below average in the case of a Class IV employee."
11. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not been called for an interview as his name was excluded from the selection panel of employees eligible for promotion. This exclusion is primarily due to his failure to meet the minimum prescribed criteria outlined in Clause (d) of the applicable Regulations. Annexure-R7, which forms the basis of this dispute, reveals the petitioner's performance under three crucial categories--service record, academics, and technical skills. A detailed examination of Annexure- -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 R7 shows that the petitioner secured 14 marks in the service record, falling short of the minimum 15 marks required. In the academics category, the petitioner obtained 5 marks, whereas the eligibility threshold is 18. In the technical category, the petitioner scored 0 marks against the required 24 marks. Thus, in all three categories, the petitioner's marks are below the prescribed minimum standards necessary for inclusion in the selection panel. These figures highlight a clear lack of eligibility under the Regulations, justifying the decision of the Promotion Committee to exclude the petitioner's name from further consideration for an interview.
12. The grounds raised in the petition appear to be general and lack substantive merit to challenge the rejection. There is no specific allegation or argument questioning the correctness or legality of the endorsement issued by the authorities. The records unequivocally establish that the petitioner was indeed considered for promotion. However, his exclusion was necessitated by his
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 inability to meet the prescribed criteria across all three categories, as mandated by Clause (d) of Regulation 10(3). Judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether the process followed by the authorities was fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the law. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own assessment of merit or interfere with decisions taken by duly constituted expert bodies unless procedural irregularities, malafide intent, or violation of statutory provisions are demonstrated.
13. In this case, the Promotion Committee, after a careful and lawful assessment of the petitioner's service record, academic qualifications, and technical expertise, concluded that he did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria. This decision was based on objective standards laid down in the Regulations, and no evidence of arbitrariness, bias, or procedural lapses has been brought on record by the petitioner. Judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating the merits of the petitioner's
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 performance or replacing the expert judgment of the Promotion Committee. Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for promotion is found to be in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by the Court.
14. The scope of judicial review in matters of promotion and administrative decisions is inherently limited to examining whether the decision-making process adhered to principles of legality, fairness, and rationality. Courts are not expected to substitute their judgment for that of the competent authorities unless there is evidence of malafide intent, procedural irregularity, or manifest arbitrariness. In the instant case, the decision to exclude the petitioner from the selection panel was based on objective criteria, explicitly stipulated in the Regulations. The scoring under various categories, as documented in Annexure-R7, reflects the application of a transparent and standardized assessment process. No allegations of bias,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9194 WP No. 102400 of 2013 extraneous considerations, or violation of natural justice have been substantiated in the petition.
15. The Court's role is to ensure that the decision- making authority exercised its power within the confines of the law and acted reasonably. Here, the petitioner's inability to meet the prescribed marks threshold unequivocally disqualifies him under the established framework. Therefore, the decision of the Promotional Committee does not warrant interference under judicial review, as it is neither perverse nor contrary to the Regulations.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
ORDER Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9, CT-SW