In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (UIICL), a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition for being devoid of merit, holding that the impugned policy was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory for the petitioners.
Petitioner 1, a Manager at Scale IV in UIICL and petitioner 2, an Assistant Manager in UIICL, alleged that they were victimised for non-cooperation in the corrupt practices of UIICL’s senior officials and that they were denied promotion based on the impugned policy. The present petition was filed due to the issuance of a notification dated 29-03-2022, whereby UIICL was to commence the promotion exercise 2022 from 12-04-2022 based on the impugned policy. The petitioners’ interim application seeking stay of the promotion exercise was disposed of a not maintainable by the Court on 10-05-2022, while reiterating that promotions made to Scale-5 and Scale-3 within UIICL would be subject to the outcome of the present petition.
The Court noted the petitioners’ contention that the impugned policy was illegal and that UIICL had enabled the promotion of corrupt and ineligible officers by framing the said policy in an arbitrary, unjust, and discriminatory manner. It was submitted that under the impugned policy, the Interview Committee was required to have access, prior to the oral interviews, to the Written Test scores, APARs, and seniority marks of all candidates under consideration for promotion. It was contended that such prior access enabled the Interview Committee to manipulate the interview results to favour pre-identified candidates and discriminate against the petitioners.
It was noted that the petitioners were also aggrieved by the provision for Fast Track Promotions extended to UIICL officials on a seniority basis, as well as by the provisions of the impugned policy which permitted relaxation of conditions for SC and ST candidates, and provided for pre-promotion training to OBC candidates. The respondents contended that, having availed the benefits of the impugned policy on earlier occasions, the petitioners were estopped from asserting that the policy was ultra vires the Constitution.
The Court noted that the petitioners already possessed the methodology for converting alphabetical APAR ratings into numerical marks, and that such information was made available by UIICL to any candidate seeking the same. It was said that the petitioners had failed to place any material on record despite making serious allegations of corruption in the promotion process. The Court stated that in absence of cogent evidence, it could not be inferred that the interview results were manipulated by the Interview Committee having knowledge of the Written Test scores, APARs, and seniority marks.
The Court stated that the petitioners had neither challenged the marks allocation nor demonstrated that the interview component carried such disproportionate weight to enable arbitrary selection solely because the Interview Committee was aware of the marks secured by candidates. It was also said that the petitioners had also failed to demonstrate any statutory interdiction. Hence, the Court held that Rule 12.2 of the impugned policy could not be held to be unconstitutional merely because the same body performed both functions.
The Court said that it was unable to accept that the number of vacancies notified under the Fast Track Channel in a promotion exercise cannot be altered. It was noted that 16 vacancies were available under the Fast Track Mechanism in the promotion exercise in question and that 24 candidates qualified the Written Test after being declared eligible for interview. However, petitioner 1 failed to qualify the written test meaning that Rule 14A(f) had no bearing on denial of his promotion.
It was held that the voluntary relaxation of eligibility criteria by up to 10% for SC and ST candidates by UIICL could not be said to be contrary to law and was in consonance with Article 335 of the Constitution. The Court also held that UIICL was also not precluded from providing OBC candidates with pre-promotion training. Thus, the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the Court held that the impugned policy was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory for the petitioners.