THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 27433 OF 1996 Date: 05.02.2008 Between: D.S.P. Sastry. … Petitioner. And The United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, 24, Whites Road, Madras. …. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 27433 OF 1996 ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents, in not promoting him as Assistant Manager, as being arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition is filed by a branch manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd. The petitioner, along with several others, was called for selection for appointment to the posts of Assistant Managers in the year 1996. It is his case that, while he was denied promotion, several of his juniors were promoted. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is a detailed self-assessment exercise wherein the petitioner has assessed the marks which he ought to have been given by the selection committee, while selecting candidates, for appointment to the posts of Assistant Managers. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager is based on multitude criteria i.e., performance, officers growth potential, job knowledge, general ability, maturity and other managerial skills. According to the respondents, the seniority of the petitioner was duly considered by the departmental promotional committee and marks were properly allotted for his seniority. Respondents would deny the petitioner’s self-declaration that his confidential reports, performance and growth potential were excellent and would state that the promotion policy gives a fair chance for promotion to all empanelled candidates subject to allotment of marks as per the criteria given thereunder. According to the respondents, the promotion policy does not deny juniors in the panel a chance for promotion since seniority alone is not the criteria for selection. While stating that the selection process adopted by them has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in K. Samantha Vs. NIC (SLP (Civil) No. 20696 of 2002-cum-Civil Appeal No. 7280 of 2003, respondents would state that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager vide office order dated 13.04.1998, that he had accepted the promotion vide letter dated 22.04.1998 and that he has taken charge in the promoted post. Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit, rightly so, that the mere fact that the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Manager in the year 1998 did not preclude him from claiming promotion anterior thereto for the year 1996. Learned Counsel would seek to make a detailed analysis of the marks allotted to the petitioner, in the criteria for promotion as prescribed in the promotion policy applicable to the respondent company, and would contend that the petitioner ought to have been allotted more marks than he was allotted and that if the marks which the petitioner was entitled to had been allotted to him, it is he and not his juniors who would have been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. While fairly conceding that the post of Assistant Manager is a selection post and that promotion to the said post is through a process of selection, and not merely on the basis of seniority, Learned Counsel would contend that improper consideration of the petitioner’s case would entitle him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, appointment to the post of Assistant Manager is by way of selection and the criteria for selection is based on certain other parameters in addition to seniority. The mere fact that juniors were promoted does not entitle a senior to contend that he should also have been automatically promoted. The promotion policy envisages calling of three candidates for each vacancy available in the post of Assistant Manager. Accepting the petitioner’s contention that he ought to have been promoted as Assistant Manger would necessitate appointment of one of the selected candidates being set aside. The petitioner has, however, chosen not to array even one of the selected candidates as respondents in the writ petition and, in the absence of the selected candidates or atleast a few of them being arrayed as respondents, the question of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner would not arise since that, in effect, would amount to setting aside the earlier selection process and would result in the appointment of one of the selected candidates being set aside. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Dalpatn Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan[1] this Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committee. It is also well settled, as has been held in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. K.K. Raman[2], that no reasons need be assigned for non-selection of a candidate and a candidate is not entitled to claim that he ought to have been informed of the reasons for his non-selection. Viewed from any angle, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ Date: 05.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434 [2] AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1806