Case: The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. T.S.Sastry

1. The respondent herein was appointed as Trainee Inspector with the appellantInsurance Co. on 14.3.1977 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. He was categorised as Grade I Inspector. In the year 1983, 8 posts of Assistant Administrative Officer (Development) fell vacant. It is not disputed that the said vacancies were required to be filled up on the basis of the. It is also not disputed that the respondent herein was also eligible for being considered for promotion to the said post. The Committee constituted for making promotion after considering the merit of the candidates, prepared a panel of 8 names for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Development). However, the respondent herein was put on the waiting list at sl.no. 9 thereof2. In November 1984, one more post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Development) was created and subsequently on 22.5.1985 a second post was further created. It is not disputed that the panel prepared by the Promotion Committee was valid from 5th July, 1984 to 4th July, 1985. Having regard to the availability of two more posts, the respondent herein made a representation to the competent authority for promoting him on one of these said posts. However, the respondent, having not received any reply, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Insurance company to promote him to the post of assistant Administrative officer (Development). A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However on a writ appeal being filed by the respondent herein, the judgment and order of the Single Judge was set aside and the appeal was allowed by issuing a direction to give notional promotion and seniority to the respondent with effect from the date when the Branches at Srikakulam and Kurnool were opened in 1984. However, the respondent herein was held to be entitled to monetary benefit only from the date of filing of the writ petition. The appellant herein filed a review petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us by means of special leave petitions.

Court's reasoning:
9. Furthermore, the vacancies at Kurnool and Srikakulam although were to be filled up from the panel by the subsequent Promotion Committee according to the appellant, were actually filled by the transfer of existing cadre. The contention raised by the appellant was that such posts were required to be filled up by the Assistant Development Officer, Veterinary, had been found to be incorrect. The High Court, having regard to the conduct of the appellant herein had, arrived at a finding of fact that filling up of the said posts of Assistant Administrative Officer, while two branches in Kurnool and Srikakulam were opened, by transferring two Veterinary Officers working elsewhere, was an act of malafide on the part of the appellant. The High Court further held that the appellant had failed to establish that the two branches which were opened during the currency of the list prepared by the Selection Committee were to be managed only by the Veterinary Officer and thus the grievance of the respondent herein that the said vacancies were to be filled up only to deprive him of the right of promotion as he was No.1 in the contingent reserve, was correct6. The very fact that there exists a provision for preparation of waiting list, we have no doubt in our mind that the employees who were found eligible to be promoted to the post of the Assistant Administrative Officer may be promoted on creation of any new post or by any vacancy occurring in the manner provided for in Clause 2.