Merit Alone Governs Scale-VII Promotions; Courts Can't Re-Assess Marks: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII under the applicable Promotion Policy is governed by the sole criterion of merit, and that courts cannot interfere with or re-evaluate the marks awarded by duly constituted promotion committees unless there is a clear violation of the prescribed procedure, parameters, or evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, held, “clause 7.2 categorically provides the emphasis or criteria to be given primacy to, at the time of promotion from scale-VI to Scale-VII. Clause 7.2 provides that promotion from Scale – VI to Scale–VII shall be based only on the sole criterion of merit, while promotion up to Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking under various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying the benchmark prescribed in para 9. Thus, in our view, for promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII, the criterion to be given primacy is merit, with seniority being duly respected in terms of clause 7.1.”The above ruling was delivered in a Writ Appeal, filed by one Lathrang Born Buam, assailing the judgment of the Single Judge by which the writ petition challenged the promotion of private respondents to Scale-VII in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had been dismissed.New India Assurance is an Indian public sector insurance company owned by the Government of India and administered by the Ministry of Finance.As per the factual matrix of the case, the appellant was serving in Scale-VI and was considered for promotion to Scale-VIIalong with other eligible officers. Sixteen vacancies were available. The appellant contended that despite being senior and having secured 60 marks under the 'Work Record' head, he was superseded by juniors. He challenged the promotion exercise on the ground that it was subjective, arbitrary, and that relevant records showing the allocation of marks were not properly placed before the Single Judge.The Court noted that promotions to Scale-VII were governed by Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Policy, which expressly prescribes merit as the sole criterion. The Bench also took note of the affidavit on record explaining how marks were awarded by the Screening Committee and the Interview & Promotion Committee.While referring to an additional affidavit filed by the New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd placed before it, the Court recorded, “The Promotion Committee conducts an objective assessment… candidates are allotted marks under the following parameters: (1) Work Record (ACRs for the immediately preceding six years), (2) External Assessment, (3) Seniority and (4) Interview.”While dealing with the appellant's submission that his seniority ought to have been given greater weight in the promotion process, the High Court recorded that even assuming the appellant to be the senior-most officer in his batch, the grant of additional marks on that account would not alter the outcome of the selection.The Court held, “On considering the inter-se seniority of the batch of 2021-2022, where the appellant belongs, in respect of those candidates who had participated in the selection process and promoted, the giving of marks on the inter-se seniority marks amongst them, on the assumption that the appellant is the senior most amongst all the candidates of the 2021-22 batch, we find that the added marks for being senior most, in terms of Clause 11.5.2 of the Promotion Policy, would not allow the appellant to overtake the last selected candidate. As such, the overall marks given to the appellant, with or without the inter-se seniority marks for the 2021-2022 batch, is less than the marks secured by the last selected candidate.”The Court further recorded that it had itself examined the promotion records and found no infirmity in the assessment carried out by the committees. It noted that after seeing the extract of the records pertaining to the exercise conducted by the Screening Committee and the marks provided by them to the candidates under various categories, along with the marks awarded by the “Interview & Promotion Committee” under the various heads i.e. work record, seniority, screening and interview, it did not find any infirmity in the manner of giving of marks by the Screening Committee and the “Interview & Promotion Committee”. The Court said, “All the marks awarded are within the permissible limit. No procedure or parameters which are to be followed by the State respondents have been violated. Further, there is no question of us substituting the marks given by the 2 Committees, when there is nothing to show that the marks were not fair or not within parameters set by them. As such, there is no reason for us to interfere with the marks awarded by the concerned Committees, which has been made under various parameters. The appellant has also not alleged mala fides against any person and as such, there is nothing to doubt the actions of the...

Merit Alone Governs Scale-VII Promotions; Courts Can't Re-Assess Marks: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags