Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN.LTD. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARASINGHA CHARAN MOHANTY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/1998
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B.PATTANAK.
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK, J.
The judgment and order dated 6.1.94 of the Orissa
High Court passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 8342 of
1992 is being challenged in this appeal inter alia on the
ground that the respondent having been considered for
promotion to the post of General Manager but not promoted as
he was not found suitable and the criteria for promotion
being merit and suitability, the High Court committed error
in directing the appellant to reconsider the question of
promotion to the post of General Manager. It is not
necessary to elaborate the facts. Suffice it to say that
the respondent had been appointed as Assistant Manager in
the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. On 23rd of
May, 1981. His services stood terminated by order dated
7.11.83. The said order of termination was challenged by
the respondent by filing a writ petition in the Orissa High
Court which was registered as Original Jurisdiction Case No.
2386 of 1983. By judgment dated 17th of April, 1987, the
High Court set aside the order of termination and directed
reinstatement of the respondent in service and granted all
consequent financial benefits which he would have been
entitled to had his service not been terminated. The
respondent, thereafter was reinstated in service and was
granted all financial benefits as well as service benefits
by way of retrospective promotion to the post of Joint
Manager with effect from 7.1.87. But when the question of
promotion to the post of General Manager crept up in the
year 1991, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered
the case of the respondent along with others but did not
find him suitable and promoted two of his juniors to the
post of General Manager. The respondent, therefore,
approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which
was allowed with the direction as already stated.
Mr. V.C. Mahajan, the learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the appellants, contends that the criteria for
promotion to the post of General Manager being merit and
suitability as per Rule 24 of the Employees Service Rules,
1979 and the respondent having been considered but not being
found suitable for promotion, there has been no infringement
of his constitutional rights of being considered. In that
view of the matter, the High Court was in error in directing
reconsideration of the case of promotion by the impugned
judgment Mr. R.K. Mehta, the learned counsel, appearing
for the respondent on the other hand contended that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Departmental Promotion Committee no doubt considered the
case of the respondeat for being promoted to the post of
General Manager but such consideration was not a
consideration in accordance with law inasmuch as even though
he was promoted to the post of Joint Manager w.e.f. 1987 in
view of earlier judgment of the High Court but Committee was
of the view that he did not have sufficient experience in
the post of Joint General Manager so as to be promoted to
the post of General Manager. According to the learned
counsel, once respondent was promoted to the post of Joint
General Manager w.e.f.1987, he must be deemed to have gained
the experience of that post even if he has not actually
served as Join General Manager w.e.f. 1987. We are unable
to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent.
Promotion to the post of General Manager is governed
by Rule 24 of the employees Service Rules, 1979. Under the
said rule the Selection Committee is required to recommend
the suitable employee for promotion whom they consider fir.
Suitability and merit being the criteria for promotion and
respondent having been considered but being found unsuitable
for promotion, the constitutional rights of being considered
cannot be said to have been infringed. If the Departmental
Promotion Committee has taken into consideration the fact
that the respondent has not in fact served as Joint General
Manager though he has been given notional promotion to the
said post and, therefore, has not gained the necessary
experience, it cannot be said that the ground is an
extraneous ground for adjudging the suitability of the
person for being promoted to the post of General Manager.
That apart, the Court is not entitled to assess the
respective merit of the candidates for adjudging their
suitability for being promoted and the only right the
employee has, is a right of consideration. The said right
of consideration not having been infringed in the present
case, the High Court was not justified in issuing the
impugned direction for reconsideration of his case. We,
accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High
Court and hold that the writ petition filed by the
respondent stands dismissed. This appeal is allowed, but in
the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.