THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO:249 OF 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent (Finance) with effect from the same date on which his juniors were so promoted. The case of the writ petitioner is that he joined the service of the APSRTC as a Junior Assistant on 14.06.1977. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant on 18.06.1990. He was subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which ended in imposition of punishment of removal. When he carried the matter by way of review before the Executive Director of the Corporation, the Executive Director through his proceedings dated 22.05.2001 has reduced the punishment of removal to that of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant (Finance) for a period of two years. On completion of the said period of punishment, the petitioner came to be restored as a Senior Assistant through the proceedings dated 23.08.2003. His name has been appropriately reflected at Sl.No.3 in the seniority list. Pursuant to a notification dated 01.09.2003, a panel was sought to be drawn for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Finance). Since the writ petitioner was not selected in the said notification as well as in the subsequent notification, he has instituted this writ petition complaining of his non-selection. The petitioner submits that he has passed the necessary departmental tests and he ought to have been, therefore, considered to be promoted particularly, when persons who are juniors to him have been so promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Finance). In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents they have specifically taken a plea that the post of Deputy Superintendent (Finance) in the service of the Corporation is a selection post and the case of the petitioner has been objectively considered along with all other eligible employees and he could not come up for selection in view of his poor rating. In view of this statement, I requested the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, to produce the Performance Assessment Sheets of the candidates. Accordingly, the Performance Assessment Sheets for the selections that took place on 30th August, 2003 as well as on 29th June, 2004 have been placed before me. In the selections that were held on 30th August, 2003, the writ petitioner’s name has been included at Sl.No.3 of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration. He was awarded 26 marks out of 50 for his merit rating record (MRR). He was awarded 17 marks for his length of service out of 25 marks. For the interview, he was awarded 5 marks out of 10 marks. I have perused the merit assessment record. No candidate who secured less than 50 marks out of 100 marks has been selected. Since the writ petitioner has secured less than 50 marks, he could not have complained of his non-selection. During the selections that took place on 29th June, 2004 also, he could not come up for selection because the last candidate to be selected secured 55 marks whereas the writ petitioner has secured less marks than that. It is therefore, clear that the case of the writ petitioner has been considered for promotion to the selection post namely the Deputy Superintendent (Finance) but he could not come up for selection because of the relative merit secured by the other candidates. Every employee has got a fundamental right to be considered for promotion to a selection post, but he has no such fundamental right to get promoted automatically. When an appropriately constituted departmental promotion committee makes an assessment of the relative merit of the candidates and if juniors have secured a better merit ranking, then they can frogleap a less meritorious senior than them. In the instant case the writ petitioner, though senior to many others who were selected could not measure up on the assessment of his merit with his juniors. Therefore, the juniors could steal a march over him by virtue of their superior merit and hence, I cannot find fault with the selections carried out by the respondents, particularly, when his relative seniority position has fetched him appropriately more marks than his juniors. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 11th November 2010 bud