C.W.P.No.5514 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5514 of 2005 Date of Decision:02.04.2008 Rishi Pal .....Petitioner versus The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the respondent. *** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(Oral) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of the directions to the respondents to promote him as Sub Inspector with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits. The petitioner joined service of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as a Conductor on 23.02.1971. Vide orders dated 19.12.2003 and 31.12.2003, a number of Conductors who are junior to the petitioner were promoted as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner who was senior to some of the persons promoted was however ignored for the promotion on the ground that the persons who are promoted have better Annual Confidential Reports than the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criteria with regard to promotion from the post of Conductors to the post of Sub- Inspectors is seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner has secured no adverse report from the year 1998-99 up to year 2002-03 i.e. for the last five years C.W.P.No.5514 of 2005 2 before the case of the petitioner was considered. His Annual Confidential Reports are as under:- “Rishipal Conductor No.274-C. Year Confidential Report 1998-99 Average 1999-2000 Good 2000-2001 Average 2001-2002 Very Good 2002-2003 Average”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon B.V.Sivaiah and others versus Addanki Babu and others, AIR 1998 SC 2565 wherein it has been held as under:- “While applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit for the purpose of promotion what is required to be considered is inter se seniority of the employees who are eligible for consideration. Such seniority is normally determined on the basis of length of service, but as between employees appointed on the same date and having the same length of service, it is generally determined on the basis of the placement in the select list for appointment. Such determination of Seniority confers certain rights and the principle of seniority-cum- merit gives effect to the such rights flowing from seniority. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit seniority has no role where the employees eligible for promotion were appointed on the same date and have the same length of service and promotion has to be made on a comparative assessment of merit of such officers”. 18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of' seniority-cum-merit' in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior even C.W.P.No.5514 of 2005 3 though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit”. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as the Annual Confidential Reports of the persons who were promoted are better than the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has been rightly overlooked and the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of B.V.Sivaiah's case(supra). Wherever the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit then unless there is anything adverse in the Annual Confidential Reports, the person who is senior would be entitled to promotion prior to the persons whose service record may be better. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner shall be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Order Annexure P-4 dated 17.06.2004 is also quashed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 02, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE