Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 582/1997 2nd February, 2015 NARINDER KUMAR KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Udyan Srivastava, Advocate.
OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenu Panday, Advocate.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee of the respondent no.2, seeks the relief of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager from the year 1992. Petitioner stood promoted from the year 1999 but the petitioner claims that he should have been promoted from the year 1992.
2. In terms of the averment made in the writ petition, the post in question is a selection post as per seniority-cum-merit, and, the following marks are 2015:DHC:996 to be fixed for the selection process, for being appointed to the post of Assistant Manager: AO to AM
1. Seniority 42
2. Insurance qualifications C.R. Form 8 a. Traits C.R. 15 b. Performance 15 c. Growth Potential 20 d. Interview - ___
3. Once the post is of seniority-cum-merit, merit has to be considered with respect to job knowledge, past performance, suitability and potential as stated in terms of the promotion policy, and with respect to various heads as have been given as stated above specific marks have to be given as per the selection process.
4. Petitioner participated in the selection process, but was declared to be not successful. Once the petitioner is declared not to be successful in the selection process, it was incumbent upon the petitioner in view of the aforesaid admitted promotion policy and the marks which have been given as stated above, for the selection process to be challenged, to state as to what marks which other officers selected in the promotion process have got and how the petitioner’s marks are more than the persons who have been selected in terms of the selection process for promotion. Petitioner, however, does not even remotely state the marks which were given to the persons who have been selected and that such marks are lower than the marks which have been allocated to the petitioner.
5. Once the petitioner has not even stated in the writ petition that he has received marks in the promotion process higher than the other candidates, and the promotion is selection by applying seniority-cum-merit basis, no relief as prayed for in the present writ petition can be granted because there is only entitlement of the petitioner to be considered in the promotion process and the petitioner has already been considered in the selection process but was not selected but other candidates have been selected for the reason that those other persons got higher marks in the selection process.
6. No other issue is urged before this Court.
7. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 02, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J sn