Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 261 (JK)

Satya Parkash Rai v. Union of India

2016-05-11

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. The petitioners are stated to be working as Site Engineers in the Ircon International Limited, which is a public sector enterprise under Ministry of Railways and engaged in the construction of Turnkey infrastructure projects in railways, highways, buildings, power sectors etc. The petitioners being eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in the non-executive cadre appeared in the written test as also in the interview. 2. It is stated that according to the norms, the petitioners were required to obtain minimum 55% marks in the written test and 60% marks in the interview and, therefore, having obtained the minimum, they ought to have been promoted but failure to do so on the part of the respondents was unjustified and illegal and contrary to the policy of the official respondents applicable for making promotions to the post of Assistant Manager. 3. According to the stand of the official respondents, not only were the petitioners required to obtain minimum of 55% marks in the written examination and 60% marks in the interview, they were also required to obtain minimum 60% marks in the aggregate. 4. It is submitted that according to the rating sheet, the petitioner No. 1 had secured 57% marks and petitioner No. 2 only 56% in the aggregate and since both of them had secured less than 60% marks in the aggregate, they were not eligible for promotion. According to the decision taken by the top management on 1.6.1995, forming annexure RA-II to the reply affidavit, the earlier practice of making the candidates eligible, who had secured 50% marks in the written test and 50% marks in the interview, was decided to be discontinued and in its place, candidates were required to obtain minimum 55 % marks in the written examination as also 55% marks in the interview while retaining an overall 60% marks as qualifying percentage for empanelment. 5. Mr. Nagrath, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents urged that the decision taken in the note dated 1.6.1995 was uniformly applied for all selections after 1995 and that the allegations of discrimination or victimization as leveled by the learned counsel for the petitioners was without any basis. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. 5. Mr. Nagrath, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents urged that the decision taken in the note dated 1.6.1995 was uniformly applied for all selections after 1995 and that the allegations of discrimination or victimization as leveled by the learned counsel for the petitioners was without any basis. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The issue that is required to be considered in this petition is as to what were the norms on the basis of which the petitioners would be deemed to have qualified the written examination as also the interview held for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in the non-executive cadre. In this regard, reference to the decision taken on 1.6.1995 assumes lot of importance, which is reproduced hereunder: "As per the present norms 75% weightage is given for the written test and 25% for personality, professional ability and service record (through interview). The qualifying marks for being called for interview are only 50% in the written test. The candidate is required to secure minimum 50% in the written test, 50% in interview and an aggregate of 60% as qualifying for empanelment. It has been experienced that those who qualify in the written test by securing around 50% or even little higher (i.e. 38 to 40 out of 75) will not be able to get through, as they have to security about 90% in the interview for getting aggregate 60%. This gives an impression to the failed candidates that they have not been able to qualify in the interview. In order to obviate from this impression, it is proposed that qualifying standard in the written examination should be increased to 55% and 55% in the interview, retaining overall 60% as qualifying for empanelment. It has not been possible to link the earlier orders in regard to norms being present followed...." 8. From a reading of the aforementioned decision, it becomes clear that as per the earlier norms, a candidate was required to obtain only 50% marks in the written test and 50% marks in the interview. However, in the aggregate, a candidate was required to obtain minimum 60% for becoming eligible for empanelment against the higher post. 9. From a reading of the aforementioned decision, it becomes clear that as per the earlier norms, a candidate was required to obtain only 50% marks in the written test and 50% marks in the interview. However, in the aggregate, a candidate was required to obtain minimum 60% for becoming eligible for empanelment against the higher post. 9. On account of certain impracticabilities as reflected in the decision itself, it was decided to increase the qualifying standard in the written test as also the interview to 55% from existing 50% while the overall qualifying percentage in the aggregate was retained at 60%. 10. It would not be out of place to state that this decision appears to have been approved by the Managing Director and other Directors of the IRCON. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Nagrath, however, frankly stated that the original copy of the note was not traceable. 11. From a reading of the above decision dated 1.6.1995, it would become clear that even according to the earlier norms, 60% was required to be obtained in the aggregate as qualifying percentage for empanelment. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to produce any policy on record to contradict the aforementioned statement reflected in the decision dated 1.6.1995 to the effect that earlier to June 1995, there was no such requirement of obtaining 60% marks in the aggregate for the written as also the interview. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record documents to suggest that in all the tests conducted for the non-executive cadre, this decision had uniformly been applied and that none, who had obtained less than 60% marks in the aggregate, had ever been promoted. 14. There is merit in what is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. The documents on record do show that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed were 60% in the aggregate even in regard to other selections conducted for the non-executive cadre. Even otherwise, the petitioners have failed to show any violation of the said norms fixed after 1995. If that be so, the petitioners cannot claim any discrimination as there exists none. 15. The documents on record do show that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed were 60% in the aggregate even in regard to other selections conducted for the non-executive cadre. Even otherwise, the petitioners have failed to show any violation of the said norms fixed after 1995. If that be so, the petitioners cannot claim any discrimination as there exists none. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments tried to allege discrimination with reference to the process of selection conducted in the year 2008 when some candidates working in IRCON's Project in Ethiopia at the relevant time were permitted to be interviewed even when they had obtained marks less than the minimum prescribed in the written test. 16. This, however, has very lucidly been explained in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondents where it has been stated that the reasons for holding the interview of such candidates in Ethiopia was to obviate the necessity of interview committee making a second trip to Ethiopia with a view to save costs. It has clearly been explained that none of the candidates, who had not qualified in the written examination were declared 'FIT' for promotion. Having considered the pleadings and the documents on record, I find that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of any relief as prayed for by them. Consequently, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications. Petition Dismissed.