| Headnote |
Service Law - Promotion - On the basis of seniority-cum- merit - Case of the appellant was considered alongwith other eligible candidates for the post of Battalion Commander but a person junior to him (respondent no.5), was promoted to the said post after considering his past five years' ACR and other records - Writ petition filed by appellant - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Where a promotion is to be given on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit", such promotion will not automatically be granted on the basis of seniority alone - A person lower in the seniority list, can be promoted, ignoring the claim of the senior person, who failed to achieve the benchmark i.e. minimum requisite merit - Fixing a criteria, or providing for minimum necessary merit, falls within the exclusive domain of policy making and cannot be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their judicial powers, unless the same is found to be off the mark, unreasonable, or malafide - Even in the absence of the executive instructions, the State/employer has the right to adopt any reasonable and bonafide criteria to assess the merit, for the purpose of promotion on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit" - The present case is not the one where, respondent no. 5 was found to be more meritorious, in fact, the same is admittedly a case, where the appellant was unable to achieve the benchmark set, as it is evident from the record that his ACRs were average, and the benchmark fixed by the State was 'Good' - Furthermore, appellant did not approach the court with clean hands, clean mind and clean objective - He had faced criminal prosecution under ss. 7 & 13(ii) of the PC Act, 1988 and ss.467/468/471/120-8 IPC, but did not disclose this fact either before the High Coult or before the Supreme Court - Claim of appellant for promotion therefore rightly rejected - Punjab Home Guard, Class-I Rules, 1988 - r. 8. Service Law - Promotion - "seniority-cum~merit" and "merit-cum-seniority" - Distinction between - Held: The principle of "seniority-cum-merit" and "merit-cum-seniority" are conceptually different - In the case of the former, there is greater emphasis upon seniority even though the same is not the deciding factor, while in the case of the latter, merit is the deciding factor.The appellant, a District Commander, claimed to have become eligible for substantive promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as per the rules applicable. The case of the appellant was considered alongwith other eligible candidates, but a person junior to him (respondent no.5), was promoted to the said post after considering his past five years' Annual Confidential Reports ('ACR') and other records. The appellant made repeated representations in this regard, but the same were not considered. Employees of another department governed by the same rules, filed Writ Petition in the High Court contending that their cases for promotion were not to be considered in the light of executive instructions dated 29.12.2000, as the. vacancies on promotional posts had occurred much before the issuance of said executive instructions. The High Court, however, directed the authorities to consider the promotion of the parties herein, ignoring the instructions dated 29.12.2000. The appellant retired on 31.12.2001 and filed Writ Petition seeking promotion and quashing of executive instructions issued on 29.12.2000 as well as on 6.9.2001. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and therefore the instant appeal. The appellant inter alia submitted that that recruitment to the post of Battalion Commander is governed by Rule 8 of the Punjab Home Guard, Class-I Rules, 1988 which prescribes that selection to the post must be made on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit"; and that the High Court committed an error by not giving weightage to seniority. |
