IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.49 of 2009 (S/B) Paramjeet Singh … Petitioner Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 Dated: 27.06.2011 Coram Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) On 21.10.2008, some amendment was affected to the promotion policy for promotion of Development Officer Grade-I (Marketing) including Development Officer Grade-I (Administration) to the cadre of Administrative Officer (Scale-I Officer). The amended Policy mentioned that a Panel of Development Officers, eligible to be considered for promotion in terms of eligibility criteria, shall be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained for seniority, qualifications and performance and that the number of eligible employees to be called for interview shall be restricted to Five times of the number of promotional vacancies. The aforementioned was provided in a ‘Note’ appended below Clause 12 of the Policy. Clause 12 of the Policy deals with the Scheme of weightage for promotion of Development Officers other than Development Officers (Administration) Grade-I. Therefore, the said note applied to those Development Officers who were not Development Officers (Administration) Grade-I. In the writ petition, it is being contended that on the basis the panel prepared, after giving marks for seniority, qualification and performance, petitioner came within 45 and there being 9 posts available for unreserved category, petitioner should have been called for interview. The fact remains that the petitioner was a Development Officer (Administration) Grade-I and, accordingly, Clause 12(A) of the amended Policy applied to him and, accordingly, the Note, appended to Clause 12 of the amended Policy, did not apply to him. However, sub-clause (d) of Clause 12(A) spoke about interview, as provided under paragraph 12 Item (D) of Clause- 2 12 of the Policy. Petitioner contends that by reason thereof, ‘note’ appended below clause 12 stood applicable to Clause 12(A) of the amended Policy. In the counter affidavit, the respondent-employer has brought on record that after the said amended Policy dated 21.10.2008 was implemented by publishing a notice on 24.10.2008 and circulating the same amongst the likely candidates, on 5.11.2008, a decision was taken to prepare Annexure-A indicating therein the marks obtained for academic qualifications, technical qualifications and seniority in terms of amended Policy dated 21.10.2008 and to display the same on the notice board in order to enable the Officers to point out discrepancies, if any, therein. Simultaneously, it was decided that after finalization of Annexure-A, the same will be sent to the Nodal Regional Office in order to enable the Nodal Regional Office to add C.R. marks to the marks indicated in Annexure-A and the total thereof shall be reflected in Annexure-B. It was also indicated that from Annexure-B five times of the vacancies, people will be called for interview. Annexure-A and Annexure-B have not been referred to in the amended Policy. With the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed Annexure-A. Petitioner, therefore, must be deemed to know that Annexure-A contained only those marks, as indicated above, and after the same had been finalized, the marks obtained therein were to be added with the marks obtained in the Confidential Reports and the same would be reflected in Annexure-B, and only when a person, on the basis of marks obtained in Annexure-B, would come within the zone of consideration of 1:5, he would be called for interview. In the instant case, petitioner contended that there was no adverse remarks against him in his A.C.Rs. of last three years to be considered in accordance with the amended Policy. We, accordingly, directed production of Annexure-B. Annexure-B has been produced, wherefrom, it appears that the petitioner obtained 16 marks out of 20 marks in his Confidential Reports and as a result of obtaining 16 marks, his total marks stood at 53 marks. We have found that the 45th person in Annexure-B got only 12.92 marks out of 20 marks in his C.R., but still in view of scoring high marks in respect of other criterions for consideration, he came within the zone of consideration. We also found that the 16th person in Annexure-B obtained less than 16 marks in C.R. The 6th person, 12th person and the 13th person, in Annexure-B respectively, obtained 16.64 marks, 16.51 marks and 16.2 marks. The contention that the 3 petitioner obtained 16 marks in C.R. and, therefore, he was not called in the interview, is, accordingly, not acceptable. He obtained lesser marks in academic qualification, technical qualification and seniority, and therefore, the 16 marks obtained by the petitioner in his C.R. brought him down in the merit list. The contention of the petitioner that there has been an undisclosed departure from the ‘note’ in the Policy is not acceptable, inasmuch as, the departure, in terms of the decision dated 5.11.2008, was fully within the knowledge of the petitioner, inasmuch as, he has annexed a copy of Annexure-A to the writ petition, made pursuant to the said decision dated 5.11.2008 and with such knowledge, he participated in the selection process. If the petitioner knew about preparation of Annexure-A, he should be deemed to be aware of the requirement of preparation of Annexure-B. As directed by us, the A.C.Rs. have been produced before us. For the reasons indicated above, we are not inclined to go into the question whether the petitioner has been properly assessed in his Confidential Reports or not. We, accordingly, return the original Confidential Reports to the respondent- employer. The next contention of the petitioner is that in terms of a decision taken on 25/26.2.2005, petitioner is entitled to conveyance expenses, which despite representations made, have not been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision in question which, in the form of minutes of a meeting, has been annexed to the writ petition, wherein it has been specifically provided that such expenses are to be claimed in the prescribed format of the bills to be approved by officer in-charge. In the writ petition, it has not been stated that prescribed format of the bill has not been approved by the officer in-charge and at the same time, it has not been stated that the petitioner has submitted any bill demanding payment of conveyance allowance in terms of the said decision. In the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.06.2011 Rdang