The writ appeal was preferred by an officer of New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the Single Judge’s judgment dated 03.06.2025, which had sustained the promotions of several private respondents to Scale-VII and declined the appellant’s plea seeking their cancellation as well as a review DPC.
Senior Advocate, K.N. Choudhury appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that under the Promotion Policy, parameters such as merit, suitability, and seniority should have been objectively assessed, and since he had secured full marks in “Work Record” and was senior to most respondents, he should not have been superseded. He further argued that certain respondents had inferior service records, unresolved criminal cases, or lower marks prior to the interview.
Advocate Zorawar Singh appearing on behalf of the Respondent Insurance Companies argued that under Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Policy, promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII is based solely on merit, with seniority having limited weight only when merit is equal. The entire selection record was produced before the Court, showing that candidates were assessed on objective parameters: work record, external assessment, seniority, screening, and interview. The appellant’s overall score placed him below the last selected candidate, despite his higher work-record marks. The Court held that seniority-based marks under Clause 11.5.2 result in only marginal differences (0.01 increments), and even granting the appellant the maximum possible seniority advantage would not elevate him above the selected candidates.
The Division Bench held that (i) the promotion policy clearly prioritizes merit for Scale-VII promotions; (ii) there was no mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of the policy; (iii) the appellant cannot raise new grounds at the appellate stage, such as the FIR issue; and (iv) no illegality occurred in promoting respondent No. 9 since – only a closure report- not a charge-sheet- existed, in line with K.V. Jankiraman. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, he has no right to be promoted, and judicial review cannot re-evaluate merit unless the process is vitiated.
Finding the entire promotion exercise to be objective, policy-compliant, and uniformly applied, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision.
