Case: Dr. S.J. Kamble Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Member, Dpc &amp; Others

1. By the present petition, the petitioner Dr. Kamble, has prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager with deemed date and consequent benefits thereupon, inter alia, to direct respondent no.1 to maintain Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe roster in the matter of promotion.

Court's reasoning:
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 then relied on item 7 of Promotion and Transfer For Policy For Officers and contended that there are 100 marks allotted for considering the promotion to the post of assistant Manager. For Seniority 42 marks are allotted and since admittedly the petitioner is senior most, he was entitled to 42 marks. Next item is insurance qualification which has 8 marks. Thus, there is no dispute that this petitioner would get 50 marks on the said aspect namely; (a) Seniority and (b) Insurance Qualification. The next columns are (c) C. R. Form and (d) Interview. Insofar as (c) is concerned, we have not been shown as to how the petitioner was anyway lower in getting the marks compared to the other officers who superseded him. Thus, the total number of marks for (c) (i) (ii) & (iii) are 50 marks. We have opened the envelope submitted to us by counsel for the respondent no.1 and we find from the said envelope that the petitioner was given 37.71 marks out of 50 and respondentm Subramanian was given 49.59 marks on 7.1 (c) (i) to (iii). Thus, we find that the petitioner was entitled to full 50 marks on account of (a) Seniority and (b) Insurance Qualification, in addition to 37.61 marks. But respondent no. 1 is not ready to show us the marks obtained by respondent no.6 on account of (a) & (b). The reason appears to be that the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 105 while respondent no.6 at Serial No. 422 in the seniority list as on 01.01.1998. We thus find that respondent no.1 was not at all justified in denying the promotion to the petitioner and unnecessarily putting him to harassment8. It is the fact that the petitioner has rightly claimed that respondent no.1 did not implement the policy of reservation in the matter of promotion for the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The tale telling facts narrated above show that merely because the petitioner was a member of Scheduled Caste, he was deliberately denied the promotion, though he was the senior most and had absolutely no adverse record against him on any count and had more marks than that of respondentm Subramanian and other 19 officers, who superseded him. This is a case of clear cut injustice. Therefore, we think that some amount of cost should be paid to the petitioner apart from the grant of relief.