Haryana State Warehousing Corp.& Ors vs Jagat Ram & Anr

2. The facts briefly stated disclose that the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation", framed its Rules and Regulations known as the Haryana Warehousing Corporation (Officers & Staff) Regulations, 1994, hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Regulations"

3. The Respondent No.3, Ram Kumar, was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Administration) in the Corporation on account of his excellent service record in comparison to that of Jagat Ram, who is Respondent No.1 in both the Special Leave Petitions. Challenging the said decision, Jagat Ram filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 17.11.2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Jagat Ram after taking into consideration the service records of both Jagat Ram and Ram Kumar and upon holding that the service record of Ram Kumar 4 was superior to that of Jagat Ram and that the Corporation had not committed any error in granting promotion to Ram Kumar.

4. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, Jagat Ram filed a Letters Patent Appeal, being 490 of 2010, before the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was allowed. The Division Bench while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Jagat Ram held that although promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Administration) is to be effected on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and not seniority alone, the promotion given to Ram Kumar was based on his gradings and on a comparative assessment of his merit as against the merit of the Respondent No.1, Jagat Ram. The Division Bench further held that since the criterion for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Administration) was seniority-

14. There is, therefore, no reason to differ with the views of the Division Bench of the High Court and both the Special Leave Petitions, filed by Ram Kumar and the Corporation, are accordingly dismissed.

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

1. I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned brother Altamas Kabir, J. I respectfully agree with the decision to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.

cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though less meritorious shall have priority.

What would offend the rule of seniority- cum-merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly hold that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the 29 functions of the higher post, is not violative of the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit."

merit. Consequently, the promotion of Ram Kumar was liable to be set aside as was rightly done by the Division Bench of the High Court.

24. In the light of the discussion above, the Special Leave Petitions are devoid of merit and hence they are dismissed.

25. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

...............................J. CYRIAC JOSEPH New Delhi;

February 23, 2011.