1. IRCON International Limited, "IIL", for short, a Government of India Undertaking, amended/modified its existing Promotion Policy for employees in the executive cadre vide Circular No.28/2010. In terms of the modified Policy, a new position of Senior Site Engineer/Senior Section Officer/Chief Office Superin tendent (SSE/SSO/COS) in E-1 Scale (16400-40500 IDA) was created by providing that Site Engineers/Section Officers/Off ice Superintendents (SE/SO/OSs), on completion of Residency period of Five years, would be eligible to consideration for promotion to the senior position in E-l Scale. 2. It was further provided that SSE/SSO/COSs, on completion of Residency period for Three years, would be eligible to consideration for promotion as Assis tan t Manager in E-2 scale (20600-46500 IDA). The petitioners, who were working as Site Engineers (SE) in IIL, seek quashing of the Circular, And Advertisement Notice No. 10/2010 whereby Applications were invited for regular posts of Assistant Manager & Junior Engineers in Civil, Electrical, Finance, S&T and Legal discipline. The petitioners' case, in a nut shell, is that the questioned Circular deprives them of their acquired right to promotion as Assistant Manager and the action of IIL was, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. IIL justifies its modified Promotion Policy saying that the Promotion Policy was amended with the approval of the Board of Directors of the Company in the interests of the Company, to see that it remains competitive and the same was, therefore, not open to question by its employees. Change in Promotion Policy is stated to have been effected in exercise of its prerogative to introduce new scales with modified channel of promotion in its endeavor to improve the quality of delivery, taking into account the technological advancements in the field of its activities and the requirement of enhancing skills and qualification of man-power to meet the growing challenges. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. With the introduction of Circular No.28/2010, IIL has introduced a new position in E-1 scale in the channel of promotions, which carries the pay scale of Rs. 16400-40500 IDA. Those working as Site Engineers/Section Officers/Off ice Superintendents(SES/SOs/Oss) will now be eligible to consideration for promotion to E-1 scale on completion of Five years' Residency period and thereafter they would be entitled to consideration for promotion as Assistant Manager in E-2 Scale (20600-46500 IDA), on completion of Three years' Residency period.
16400-40500 IDA. Those working as Site Engineers/Section Officers/Off ice Superintendents(SES/SOs/Oss) will now be eligible to consideration for promotion to E-1 scale on completion of Five years' Residency period and thereafter they would be entitled to consideration for promotion as Assistant Manager in E-2 Scale (20600-46500 IDA), on completion of Three years' Residency period. The admitted case of the parties is that before issuance of Circular No.28/2010, the petitioners were permitted, on two occasions, to compete in the Selection process for promotion as Assistant Manager. They, however, remained unsuccessful, for, they could not clear the interview. The short question that, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the Modified Promotion Policy promulgated by the Company, introducing an intermediary post in between the position of SE/SO/OS and Assistant Manager, takes away any enforceable right of the petitioners as result whereof, the Circular becomes unsustainable. To find answer to the question it needs to be ascertained as to whether or not the petitioners had acquired any such right of consideration to promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, which could not be taken away by their employer by introducing amendment in the existing Promotion Policy, which does not allow them consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. 4. It is settled proposition of law that no employee has any right to claim promotion against a particular post. All that he possesses, what flows from Article-16 of the Constitution of India, is his right to consideration for promotion. This is, however, subject to the existence of a promotional post in the cadre of service. Although every employee has a right to consideration for promotion because stagnation at one place may be impermissible, in that, it affects his development as such, thereby affecting his enforceable right to develop and elevate while in service. This right of his, is, however, subject to the prerogative of the employer to prescribe such avenues of promotion prescribing, qualifications, conditions and criteria therefor, which may suit its requirements. This would include introducing new channels of promotion by superseding existing method and manner of promotions. This is so because the employer cannot be compelled to keep static, the Promotion Policy of its employees, at the risk of its enterprise/institution, which for its development may require several changes in the Promotion Policy. 5.
This would include introducing new channels of promotion by superseding existing method and manner of promotions. This is so because the employer cannot be compelled to keep static, the Promotion Policy of its employees, at the risk of its enterprise/institution, which for its development may require several changes in the Promotion Policy. 5. It is no longer res Integra that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions, pertain to the field of Policy, which is within the exclusive discretion, domain and jurisdiction of the employer. These Policy matters may be questioned by an employee and that too invoking Review Jurisdiction of the Court, only if, his acquired right, was in any way interfered with, by introduction of the employer's new Policy. In view of the legal position settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.U. Joshi and others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, reported as 2003 SCC (L&S) 191, none of the acquired rights of the petitioners is found to have been interfered with or taken away by the impugned Circular, in that, all that the Circular prescribes is a new channel of Promotion for SE/SO/OSs, in terms whereof they will be entitled to consideration for promotion initially as SSE/SSO/COSs after completion of Five years' Residency period and thereafter to the post of Assistant Manager after completion of further Three years' Residency period. The Circular does not in any way take away the employees' right to consideration for promotion according to the Policy, which has been made effective from DPC-2010 onwards. 6. The petitioners' learned counsel's submission that the impugned Circular takes away the petitioners' right to promotion as Assistant Manager is, therefore, found untenable, in that, the petitioners have no enforceable right to seek promotion to the post of Assistant Manager for all times to come. Their enforceable right is only to consideration for promotion to those posts, which the employer, in terms of its needs and requirements, deems it fit and proper so to prescribe providing promo tional avenues to its employees.
Their enforceable right is only to consideration for promotion to those posts, which the employer, in terms of its needs and requirements, deems it fit and proper so to prescribe providing promo tional avenues to its employees. The petitioners had exercised their right to consid eration for promotion as Assistant Manager, when in terms of the rules, they were eligible to such consideration but with the introduction of new pattern of promo tions including that to the Assistant Manager's level, their right to consideration for promotion is only to the post of SSE and not to the post of Assistant Manager, which they would earn only after becoming SSE and gaining Three years' experience of Residency period. The creation of intermediary post in between the post of SE and Assistant Manager does not, therefore, take away any enforceable right of the petitioners on the basis whereof the Circular may be questioned. 7. For all what has been said above, the petitioners' challenge to Circular No. 28/2010, therefore, fails. This Writ Petition is, therefore, found without merit, hence dismissed.