JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Page 1432
1. By these proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction is sought to the respondent to promote the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- with effect from 1.4.2004
2. The petitioner, formerly an employee of the Indian Railways, was deputed to the Centre for Railway Information Systems (the first respondent, hereafter called ‘CRIS’), on 16.2.1989, as a Senior Console Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. The petitioner had received training in Computer Operations and acquired academic qualifications/ certificate. His services were found useful and he was absorbed in CRIS. On 1.4.1997 the petitioner was promoted as Console Superintendent in the (revised) grade of Rs. 2200-4000/-. It is alleged that upon completion of three years in the grade of Console Superintendent, an employee is entitled to consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.
3. The petitioner represented for consideration of his case on 25.2.2000; he superannuated from services on 31.7.2000. He claims that on account of the delayed convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee, his case could not be considered and when the DPC was convened, on 14.11.2000, he was ignored and his immediate junior was promoted with effect from 11.4.2000; his immediate senior was promoted on 1.4.2000. The petitioner apparently represented to the CRIS between 2001 and 2004, but without any success. He, therefore, has approached this Court.
4. It is claimed that the petitioner’s super-annuation does not come in the way of his rightful claim for consideration for promotion; reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baij Nath Sharma Vs. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court; 1998 (7) SCC. It is also averred that the DPC, which was eventually convened, recommended the names of candidates, who were in service and gave them the benefit of promotion from an earlier date; hence there is no impediment to grant of that relief.
5. The CRIS in its counter affidavit has averred that the petitioner’s services were absorbed at his request and that as per the existing rules a number of years requires for promotion from one grade to another up to the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- has been laid down. Beyond this, promotion of Console Operators is considered, depending on need and performance of the employee in the category of Console Operators. It is averred that the number of years laid down for promotion of professionals (Software Engineers) from one grade to another beyond the scale of Rs.6500-10,500/-, is taken into consideration. Therefore, the number of years required for promotion from the grade of Rs.8000-13,500/- to Rs.10,000-15,200/- is three years in the lower grade, provide
if there is any need in that category. It is averred that promotion is Page 1433 not a matter of right and that cases are considered on the basis of the utility and need of the employee in the higher post. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that the Office Order namely, No. 200/2000 dated 14.11.2000 related to the promotion of Software Engineers; the DPC did not consider the promotion of any other category except Software professionals. It is also averred in Para 2.12 of the counter affidavit that :
“2.12 That the contents of the para no. 2.12 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied as alleged. It is submitted that the DPC constituted for promotion of the employees mentioned in office order No. 200/2000 dated 14.11.200 referred to by the petitioner in the para under reply, which pertained to the promotion of the Software Engineers. Therefore, the DPC did not consider promotion of any other category except Software Professions. Hence there was no relevance that the name of the Petitioner was ignored and his case was not taken into consideration for the purpose of his promotion. As such, the question of promotion of any junior to the Petitioner in the category of Console Operator does not arise.
6. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated the position taken by them in the respective pleadings. Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the norms for promotion formulated by the CRIS, to say that the petitioner was eligible for promotion and had a right to be considered on his own merits. It was submitted that once the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Rs.2,000-Rs.3500/- (later revised to Rs.2200-4000/-) on 1.4.1997, he had a right to be considered when his immediate junior and senior were considered and promoted in November, 2000. He has placed reliance on the order, dated 14.11.2000 and the earlier order dated 27.9.1997 in support of the contention.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the fact that promotion is not a matter of right and is purely need based, the order by which the so-called juniors and seniors of the petitioner’s were promoted showed that only software engineers were given the benefit. It was felt that having regard to the recruitment norms and the exigencies of the service only those with technical qualifications were to be promoted. The petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite technical, engineering qualification. He was trained in and held qualifications in Computer Programming/ Data Entry.
8. The relevant norms of recruitment formulated by CRIS read as follows :
“NORMS FOR PROMOTION
05. PROFESSIONALS
Diploma holders in any Engineering discipline/PG diploma in computers with graduation will be appointed in grade Rs.1640-2000. Their eligibility for further promotion would be as under :
Grade Designation Minimum service/ experience for promotion
—————————————————–
Rs1640-2900 Jr.Software Engineer/ 3 years
Associate Systems Engineer/
Jr. Engineer
Page 1434
Promotion Committee :
Registrar, one Chief Manager from concerned department and one Chief Manager from another Technical department. The Technical members will be nominated by the concerned General Manager.
2000-3500 Asstt. SoftwarEngineer/
Asstt. Engineer 2 years
Promotion Committee:
Same as above.
2200-4000 Software Engineer/System Engineer/ 4 years
Engineer/Accounts Officers
Promotion Committee:
Registrar, General Manager/FOLIS, General Manager/Tech., General Manager/Projects and Chief Finance Officer/Director Finance for Accounts personnel.
3000-4500 Sr. Systems Engineer/Executive
Engineer/ Sr. Accounts Officer 4 years
Promotion Committee: Same as for promotion from grade Rs.2200-4000.
FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS
Rs.1640-2900 3 years Diploma course in Relevant Engineering from a recognized Institute or Computer Diploma of 1-1/2 (one and a half) years duration after Graduation from an Institute of repute.
2000-3500 Same as above but with a minimum of 3 years experience in therelevant field or fresh MCA.
2200-4000 B.E/B.Tech in relevant Engineering or Computer Science from a recognized University/MBA graduates/ACA/ACS/ICWA.
06 DATA ENTRY OPERAtorS
The basic qualification for recruitment as Data Entry Operator would be Higher Secondary with some exposure to Computer education/experience and possessing minimum typing speed of 30 w.p.m. He shall be placed in grade Rs.950-1500. He will be eligible for promotion to grades Rs.1200-2040 and Rs.1400-2600 after having put in 5 years of satisfactory service in each grade and would be based on suitability to be adjuged by departmental test and interview by Selection Committee. His next channel of promotion to grade Rs.1640-2900 would be after five years of satisfactory performance of service in the lower grade. He will be eligible for this grade only if he is a Graduate. Further, advance would depend on his qualifying a departmental examination. Once/she has qualified a departmental examination and has been placed in grade Rs.2000-3500, he/she will be treated at par with M.C.A. For future promotion system. The promotion committee for all promotions would consist of Chief Manager/Projects, Registra
and Chief System Manager/FOIS.
07 CONSOLE OPERAtor
The basic qualification for recruitment as Console Operator will be graduate with diploma in Computer Application from an Institute of repute. He shall be placed in grade Rs.1400-2600. He/she will be eligible for promotion to grade Rs.1640-2900 after having put in five years of satisfactory service Page 1435 and suitability to be adjuged by departmental test and interview by Selection Committee. The promotion committee for their promotions would comprise Systems Manager/Computer Operation, Manager/Hardware Maintenance and Dy. Registrar.
His next channel of promotion in grade Rs.2000-3500 would be subject to his passing a departmental examination after 5 years of service in lower grade. Once he/she has qualified this examination and has been placed in grade Rs.2000-3500, he/she will be treated at par with M.C.A. for future promotion. The promotion committee would comprise Chief Manager/CO, Chief Manager/Hardware Maintenance and Registrar.
For those recruited in lower grades, promotions up to Rs.1400-2600 shall be with 2 years experience in each lower grade subject to satisfactory working.”
NOTE:
07 Eligibility for being considered for promotion will be strictly on the basis of merit, based on selection and not automatic based on time scale. No person in CRIS will be eligible for promotion within a period of two years of joining CRIS, including at least one year after successful completion of probation.”
9. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Baij Nath’s case (supra) no doubt supports the petitioner’s contention that a retired employee can have a valid grievance if any of his juniors have been given promotion from the date prior to his superannuating. The question, however, is whether the impugned order dated 14.11.2000 by which he was denied promotion, is contrary to the terms of the judgment or violative of any of the norms or recruitment rules applicable to the respondent.
10. The impugned order dated 14.11.2000 granted promotion to a large number of persons, two of them were granted promotion from the grade of Rs.10,00-Rs.15200 to Rs.12000-16500/-. The rest were promoted from the grade of Rs.8000-13500 to Rs.10000-13500/-. The petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. During the course of arguments it was pointed out that his junior namely, Sh. K. A.K. Jilani was promoted as also Mr. Rajan Verma, his immediate senior.
11. A look of the impugned order dated says that both these persons were given promotions with effect from 1.4.2000 and 11.4.2000. The petitioner retired from the services on 30.1.2000. To that extent, the petitioner has a locus standi to maintain these proceedings and claim promotion.
12. On the merits, it is not disputed that the post held by the petitioner was undoubtedly of Console Superintendent, with a pay scale of Rs.8000-13500. This corresponds to the pay scale of Assistant Software Engineer/ Assistant Engineer, which was later revised to Rs.2200-4000/-. Clause 7 of the Rule states that the next channel of promotion to a Console Operator in the grade of Rs.2000-3500 would be subject to passing a departmental examination after 5 year’s of service in the lower grade. It further states that if he qualifies the examination, he would be placed in higher grade and would be treated at Page 1436 par with MCA for future promotions. The higher grade for the post of Software Engineers namely, Rs.10000-13500 (pre-revised Rs.2200-4000/- which was later revised to Rs.3000-4500), is on the basis of merit. Note 7 to the norms for promotions, provides that eligibility for consideration is strictly on merit and not automatic, based on time scale. In view of these, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the impugned order pertain only to software engineers.
13. The impugned order undoubtedly indicates that those in the engineering stream namely, Assistant Software Engineer, Software Engineer and Senior Software Engineers were considered and promoted. The petitioner had sought to rely upon a certificate, which shows that he had an advance Diploma in Computer Applications. I am of the view that in the absence of any material to show that he had the requisite qualification or could be deemed a software engineer, the stand of the respondents in refusing to consider his case for promotion, after he retired from services on 30.1.2000, cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable. The petitioner also, in my opinion has not been able to make out a case that promotion is based on seniority, and that every employee is entitled to it, automatically on completing a certain period of qualifying service. As noticed earlier, one of the conditions namely, Note 7 clearly spells out that promotions are to be only on the basis of merit; the impugned order ex facie shows that promotions were only amongst the category of engineers.
14. The impugned order was admittedly issued in November 2000; the petitioner retired in July, 2000. The present proceedings were initiated in the year 2004 Though I have considered the merits of the case, the delay of more than three years is also a rel evant factor, in considering entitlement to relief, where the petitioner, as in the present case, retired prior to the impugned order, and is seeking benefit of promotion, with effect from an anterior date.
15. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order or the stand of the respondents declining to promote the petitioner with effect from 11.4.2000. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.