Civil Writ Petition No.9344 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9344 of 1990 Date of Decision: February 13, 2009 S.K.Soni .......Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PK Mutneja, Advocate for New India Assurance Company Ltd. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition, inter alia, seeks direction to quash promotion list dated 17.5.1990 on the ground that persons junior to the petitioner had been given promotion as Assistant Managers. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined the New India Assurance Company Limited as an Assistant Inspector in January 1965. The said company was nationalized w.e.f. 1.1.1973. As per practice then prevailing, every employee was entitled to promotion after completion of three years of service, but the petitioner was superseded and was not given the due promotions. He was given promotion to the next post of Branch Civil Writ Petition No.9344 of 1990 -2- Manager in the year 1984 instead of promotion being given from 1.1.1976. As per policy codified in the year 1990, criteria for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit was laid down. The petitioner was transferred as Assistant General Manager on the development side on 18.6.1990 against the transfer policy. The petitioner represented against his transfer as well as promotion list but no decision was taken. 3. The writ petition has been contested with the plea that the post in question was a selection post based only on merit. Persons promoted prior to the petitioner were more meritorious. As per practice prior to 1990, three years' service was the eligibility condition for further promotion, but promotion was not automatic. The petitioner was considered even as per new policy w.e.f. 1.1.1990 but did not come up in merit and was not found suitable. He was not transferred by way of punishment but due to exigency of service. His transfer was not in violation of transfer policy. 4. The writ petition was admitted after noticing conflicting views in judgment of this Court in R.K.Sareen, Sanitary Inspector Vs. Cantonment Board, Jullundur Cantt. and others, 1988(6) SLR 112 holding that principles of seniority-cum-merit meant seniority subject to fitness, and the judgment of Kerala High Court in North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Association Vs. North Malabar Gramin Bank and 4 others, 1989(3) SLR 324 laying down that even in policy of seniority- cum-fitness, comparative merit was required to be assessed and a senior person can be superseded for promotion. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for New India Assurance Company submits that whatever be the merit of the case, by efflux of time, it may no longer be Civil Writ Petition No.9344 of 1990 -3- necessary to adjudicate upon the issue raised in the petition as a period of 19 years has elapsed and the petitioner may have retired a long back. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though he tried to contact his client, there was no response. On merits, Shri Mutneja relies on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Samantaray Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., A.I.R. 2003 SC 4422 dealing with the same promotion policy of the National Insurance Company wherein it was held that stress was not on seniority alone and weightage was to be given to merit and other relevant aspects also. 7. Apart from the fact that plea of seniority alone has been rejected in the context of policy in question, we are of the view that it will not be proper to quash the order of transfer or the seniority list as it may not be practical to reverse events which have gone by. 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) February 13, 2009 JUDGE SRM