Civil Writ Petition No.6210 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6210 of 1993 Date of Decision: 8.5.2014.
B.S.Deshwal .......Petitioner Versus Oriental Insurance Company ......Respondents Limited and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 22.3.1993 (Anneuxre P-9) whereby the other co-employees of the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and has further sought direction that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer from the date the person, who had attained lesser marks than the petitioner, was promoted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined the insurance company as Development Officer with effect from 6.7.1984.
Vide notification dated 6.4.1992, the insurance company had notified 7 posts of Assistant Administrative Officer.
The criteria for the selection consisted Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.13 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6210 of 1993 -2- of 100 marks which were divided as under:- Qualification : 20 Marks Service : 20 Marks Performance Appraisal : 40 Marks Interview : 20 Marks Total : 100 Marks Vide Annexure P-2, it was shown that the petitioner had obtained 49.33 marks out of 72.
However, in terms of some audit objection, the marks of the petitioner for the year 1990-1991 were reduced from 8 to 6.67.
Since the marks of the petitioner were reduced in view of the audit objection, he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.
Petitioner moved a representation and a second audit report was submitted wherein the marks of the petitioner were increased from 6.67 to 7.33 for the year 1990-1991.
The last person, who had been promoted, had got 70.12 marks, in all, after interview whereas in view of the second audit report, petitioner had secured 70.17 marks.
Therefore, petitioner was liable to be promoted with effect from the date when the person, who had got lesser marks, had been promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the year 1992.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner had been granted 49.33 marks out of 72 as per Annexure P-2.
However, in view of the audit report, the marks of the petitioner were reduced from 8 to 6.67 for the year 1990-1991.
Since the petitioner had secured more than 44 marks i.e.the cut off marks for calling a candidate for interview, he was called for the interview.
Petitioner had got 69.51 marks in all after calculating the marks obtained by him in the interview whereas the last candidate who was promoted to the post of Assistant Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.13 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6210 of 1993 -3- Administrative Officer, had got 70.12 marks.
Although, in view of the second audit report, petitioner was liable to get 7.33 marks for the year 1990-1991 but by that time, the promotion exercise was already over.
Thus, in the present case, the facts are not in dispute.
Petitioner was working as Development Officer with the insurance company in the year 1992.
7 posts of Assistant Administrative Officer were liable to be filled up by way of promotion.
As per Annexure P-2, petitioner had obtained 49.33 marks out of 72 marks.
However, thereafter in view of audit objection, it transpired that operating surplus of the petitioner for the year 1990-1991 had reduced from 30.25% to 24.96%.
Due to this reason, the marks of the petitioner were reduced from 8 to 6.67.
Since the cut off marks for calling the candidates for interview was 44, petitioner was called for interview as he had obtained more than 44 marks.
Petitioner got 69.51 marks in total whereas the last candidate who was selected, had got 70.12 marks.
In view of the representation moved by the petitioner, on re-calculation in the year 1993, it was found that the marks of the petitioner for profitability would come to 7.33 instead of 6.67.
Thus, the total marks obtained by the petitioner came to 70.17.
However, by that time, the promotion process was already over.
Thus, at the time when the promotions were ordered, petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer as he had got less marks than the last selected candidate.
Petitioner had been duly considered for promotion and at the time of promotions of the candidates to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, petitioner could not be promoted as he had got lesser marks than the last selected candidate.
The promotion orders could not be undone after they Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.13 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6210 of 1993 -4- had been passed in view of recalculation made qua the marks of the petitioner in the year 1993.
Petitioner was later promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.
In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 08, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.13 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh