IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2003 Mr.Pradeep Balkrishna Joshi & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.G. Mujumdar for the Petitioners. Ms.Nisha Valani with U.Joshi for Respondent No.1. Mr.Chirag Balsara with Ms.Meeta Dagli i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 4, 2008 DATED : MARCH 4, 2008 DATED : MARCH 4, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners who are the employees of respondent no.5 Insurance Company challenge the validity of the amendments made in paras 30, 31 and 39b of the Promotion Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and subordinate Staff which was brought about in the year 2003. It is a common ground that the promotion policy was adopted in 1999 providing qualification marks to Computer Diploma holder and according to that policy, promotions were made. In 2003, a change was made in that policy because according to the respondents, they had received representations from the employees about - 2 - awarding of marks for the aforesaid diploma in computer software/hardware qualification being treated on equal footing with Fellowship/MBA. Challenge in this petition is to the amendment made in the policy. The challenge is two fold, that the respondent could not have changed the promotion policy, the change made in the promotion policy is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as change made is arbitrary and discriminatory and Second challenge is that by adopting the promotion policy of 1999, a representation was made and, therefore, the respondents are now estopped from changing the promotion policy because of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 2. So far as the first contention is concerned, in our opinion, the contention has no substance because the respondents in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 have given reasons in detail why it was necessary for the respondents to make changes in the promotion policy. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 read as under :- "3. Sometime in or about 1999, it was felt that the computer literacy prevailing amongst the employees of insurance companies was - 3 - substantially low. At that time, it was felt that the insurance industry marched towards 2000 A.D., an optimum thrust was required to be given to computer education. It was felt that in achieving the objectives to increase computer literacy, it was essential to introduce latest practices in information technology to promote computer literacy amongst employees of insurance companies. I say that as part of the efforts to broad-base computer knowledge, information technology culture, efforts had to be made to recognise computer qualifications. The aforesaid paradigm shift in priorities had been trust upon the insurance industry in India on account of competition from the then proposed foreign insurance firms, once the insurance industry in India was thrown open to private participation. Being a service industry, the survival of the insurance companies largely depended on customers satisfaction. Without matching software packages at that point of time, the industry could not cope with the tall demands of customers. In such changing scenario it was necessary that the employees of insurance companies acquired knowledge in computer education. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ground reality prevalent at that point of time, the Respondents provided qualification marks to computer diploma holder in the promotion policy. Further, it was felt that the amendments to the promotion policy proposed at that point of time were well times and eminently commensurate with the need and demand of the hour. The Board of Respondent No.5 therefore, being empowered to formulate a promotion policy, amended promotion policy for supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff. By the aforesaid promotion policy amended upto 25th February 1999, vide clauses 30, 30.01 and 39 thereof, those employees who had done diploma courses (minimum one year duration) in the fields of computer software/hardware from institutions such as Aptech, NIIT, NIC and NCST were considered and given a weightage of 10 marks. - 4 - 4. The Petitioners say that between 1999 and 2003, there was a changed scenario whereby the substantial number of employees of Respondent No.5 became computer literate. I say that Respondent No.5 started receiving frequent representations from employees about awarding marks for the aforesaid diploma in computer software/hardware qualification being treated on equal footing with Fellowship/ MBA. There were also allegations of malpractice by private computer institutions. 5. I say that it was in view of the aforesaid representations to the effect that the aforesaid diploma in computer application course should not be treated at par with degree courses such as MBA and in view of the fact that there were allegations of malpractice by private computer institutions in awarding the aforesaid diploma in computer applications, during a meeting of the General Managers (Personnel) held on 26th/27th July, 2002 a decision was taken that the marks for diploma in computer application (one year duration) from the aforesaid institutions would be reduced to 2 marks from then prevailing 10 marks. The aforesaid decision was placed before the general body of GIPSA on 22nd August, 2002 and the same has been approved. The GIPSA vide its letter dated 22nd October, 2002 has communicated the same. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that Respondent No.5 issued the Circular dated 20th January, 2003 amending paras 30, 31 and 39B of the Promotion Policy for supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff as set out therein." 3. The petitioners have filed rejoinder after affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondents. In the rejoinder, the statements made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 - 5 - quoted hereinabove are not disputed. In our opinion, the change in the promotion policy was necessary. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that they are either arbitrary or discriminatory. We find no substance in the first challenge. So far as second challenge is concerned, adopting a policy for promotion is necessarily a policy decision and if any change in that policy decision is made due to change in the circumstances, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not apply. We also find that the same Rules were challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by General Insurance Employees’ Association in different writ petitions. Those writ petitions have been decided by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 2nd September, 2003. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has considered the whole controversy in detail and has also held that no exception can be taken to the amendments made in the promotion policy. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has held that it is within the competence of the employer to amend the service conditions in a uniform manner and the only condition - 6 - precedent is that it should not be arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. We find that the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court by his reasoned order has turned down challenge to the validity of the changes made in the promotion policy. We have not been shown anything which would even indicate that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court is in any way wrong. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter, we find no substance in the petition. 5. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)