Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This writ petition was filed by petitioner Smt.Santosh Sherry way back on 26/8/1996 inter-alia with the prayer that the order passed by the respondent-Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short, RFC on 17/8/1996 promoting her juniors respondents No.2 to 4 by superseding her may be quashed and set-aside and the respondent-RFC may be directed to promote her on the post of Manager from the date above referred to respondents No.2 to 4 were promoted, with all consequential benefits and be further directed to redesignate petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) in the pay scale of 3200-4625 from the date such pay scale was granted to so many of her juniors, with all the consequential benefits. It is also prayed that interest @24% p.a. be awarded to the petitioner with the consequential benefits referred to above.

3) Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that supersession of the petitioner was wholly illegal inasmuch as, she was denied reasonable consideration for promotion. The criteria for promotion to the post of Manager was seniority subject to suitability. According to this criteria, a junior person cannot be promoted giving undue weightage to merit over seniority. It was argued that this criteria of seniority subject to suitability is totally a different criteria than the criteria of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority which came to be interpreted by this Court in G.S. Rajawat Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. : 1993(1) WLC (Raj.) 117. On the strength of this judgment, learned counsel for petitioner argued that merit alone cannot out weigh seniority, criteria being seniority subject to suitability and a senior cannot be ignored only on that count. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Valsala Kumari Devi M. Vs. Director, higher Secondary Education & Ors. : (2007) 8 SCC 533 : JT 2007 (11) SC 305 in which, it was held that on the basis of the criteria of seniority and suitability, suitability has to be understood in the context of fulfilling the qualification and experience, etc. meaning thereby, comparative suitability of candidate has no role to play. It was argued that the order issued by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation dated 23/10/1996 denying the higher grade of pay of the redesignated post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) to the petitioner was illegal. Petitioner was thus accorded a hostile discriminatory treatment inasmuch as, she had completed requisite and essential 12 years of service on the substantive post and had satisfactory service record with no departmental enquiry being pending against her therefore, she could not be denied such benefit whereas, at the same time, her juniors were granted upgraded scale of pay. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. N.P. Dhamania & Others : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 1 and State Bank of India etc. Vs. Kashinath Kher and others : AIR 1996 SC 1328 argued that the authorities were under obligation to assign reason to substantiate their stand for superseding / ignoring case of the petitioner for promotion.

4) Per contra, Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for RFC opposed the writ petition and submitted that case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee as per the procedure contained in the Circular dated 19/9/1986 where criteria for promotion to the post of Manager is that of seniority subject to suitability as per which, higher the post more the suitability required. Case of the petitioner was considered after examining her entire service record including APARs of the relevant years, which did not adjudge the petitioner suitable for promotion to such post of Manager which is a post of responsibility. It was argued that the meeting of the DPC for such promotion was convened on 3/7/1996 which considered case of the petitioner as well as other four eligible Deputy Managers. While other four were adjudged suitable, the petitioner was not, on the criteria being seniority subject to suitability. Learned counsel referring from the additional affidavit filed by the respondents argued that petitioner had only two satisfactory grading in his APARs of the years 1989-90 and 1990-91, three average grading in the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Her performance was thus rated average during all the relevant seven years. It clearly shows that petitioner was not suitable to perform the duties of responsible post of Manager. As regards non-grant of upgraded post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation), learned counsel argued that the Board of Directors of the respondent-RFC in its meeting dated 30/5/1996 decided to redesignate 18 posts of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) and considered case of candidates including petitioner and other five respondents which included three senior to the petitioner. She was however not found eligible for redesignation as Deputy Manager (Stagnation) keeping in view her APARs and service record. Petitioner was therefore not redesignated as Deputy Manager (Stagnation). It was argued that redesignation for the upgraded post was also made by adopting the same criteria of promotion which was applicable to the ordinary case of promotion. Only those, who were found fit and fulfilled the requisite eligibility for promotion to such upgraded post were granted the same as the intention was to remove stagnation due to non-availability of higher post.

8) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record.

9) Question of grant of redesignated post in upgraded pay scale need not be considered in the first instance because if petitioner succeed on the first prayer, occasion for considering second prayer would not arise. The first prayer concerns supersession of petitioner by three of her juniors in the matter of promotion to the post of Manager vide order dated 17/8/1986. Indisputably, as per the promotion policy of the respondent-RFC contained in their Circular dated 19/9/1986, criterion of promotion was on seniority subject to suitability. Supersession of an employee of the respondent-RFC exactly on the same criteria came to be challenged before this Court in G.S. Rajawat supra. In that case also, dispute arose between petitioner-G.S. Rajawat and respondent-RFC regarding promotion on the post of Deputy Manager and the criteria of promotion was the same viz. seniority-cum-suitability. This Court after considering number of Supreme Court judgments and judgments of High Courts, allowed the aforesaid writ petition. Ratio of the judgment of this Court in G.S. Rajawat supra clearly shows that a senior cannot be ignored even if his junior has better service record. This Court held therein that when the criteria is seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability, then a senior person can be ignored only if it is found that he is unfit. Consideration of better merit cannot weigh when recommendations are required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability or seniority subject to suitability. Though stand of respondent-RFC, as has been argued on their behalf is that petitioner was not suitable for promotion to the post of Manager because the post of Manager carries higher responsibilities. But this cannot be accepted on their mere ipse-dixit that higher the post, greater the amount of suitability required. What is to be examined is whether the fact that petitioner had five average gradings and two satisfactory gradings during seven relevant years, would by itself is sufficient to hold that she was not suitable for promotion. In other words, the scope of examination would be whether the DPC correctly understood, analyzed and applied the criteria of seniority subject to suitability on the facts of the present case. When Shri S.N. Gupta, respondent No.3, who has been adjudged suitable by the DPC for promotion having four average, two satisfactory and one above average rating in the relevant seven years, why the petitioner who had five average gradings and two satisfactory gradings during the same seven years, has not been considered suitable by the DPC? This Court in G.S. Rajawat supra has clearly noticed that criteria of seniority subject to suitability holding that it cannot be routed through the level of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. It is just like seniority-cum-fitness. When the criteria of promotion is merit then the best amongst the candidates falling within the zone of consideration or those fulfilling a particular yard-stick laid down for determination of merit can be picked up for promotion. When the criteria is merit-cum-seniority, preponderance of weight is to be given to the consideration of merit and even junior person having better record than the senior person, can be promoted. When however the criteria is seniority-cum-merit, more weightage is to be given to the seniority and a person who is otherwise suitable cannot be denied promotion merely because, a junior person is considered to be more meritorious. If however the criteria is seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability then, a senior person can be ignored only if it is found that he is unfit. Consideration of better merit cannot be weighed when recommendations are required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability or seniority subject to suitability.