JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Prakash, petitioner-in-person and Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the promotion of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 13 contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition after summoning the original records from the opposite parties; ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to re-schedule the result of the opposite parties from 4 to 13 after disclosing marks of all promoted candidates obtained under the head of work record and interview specifically after calling for the original record in relation to promotional exercise of the opposite parties; iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote the petitioner from Scale-in to Scale-IV post with all consequential benefits arising out of seniority and back wages etc. iv. Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner; and v. Allow the petition with costs." 3. In addition to the aforesaid relief, by way of amendment, the petitioner has also sought following reliefs: "iii (a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner in pursuance of promotion exercise 2014-15 after summoning the complete original records of promotion exercise 2014-15, If any illegality revealed. iii (b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned circular dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure No. 15) to the writ petition. iii (c). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proviso and explanation added to Para 9.2.1 of promotion policy 2006. Or/Alternatively The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to lay down some criteria for assessment of senior persons to be selected through seniority channel, that is, the list B under Normal channel. iii(d). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party to consider and formulate interview policy barring/excluding persons who are aware about marks of written examination from being member of Interview Committee. iii (e). iii(d). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party to consider and formulate interview policy barring/excluding persons who are aware about marks of written examination from being member of Interview Committee. iii (e). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party to disclose marks of all candidates in reckoning parameters before declaring of promotion list. iii (f). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party and National Insurance Academy, the examination conducting body, to declare the result/marks of online written examination then and there and also to disclose question paper/questions with key answers of the written test on the internet. iii (g). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the provision of interview for promotion from Scale-III to Scale IV. Or Alternatively, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to lay down specific criteria/parameters for assessment of competence/worthiness of candidates for the promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV (directing percentage of interview marks in comparison to written exam. Marks and other criteria). iii (h). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the promotion of Shri Yogesh Meshram, Shri Chunna Lal and other Scale-III Officers who have been illegally promoted to Scale-IV, after considering the records of promotion exercise 2015-16 already summoned by the Hon'ble Court. iii (i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the promotion exercise 2016-17." 4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under:-- According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Company on 27.11. 1989 through direct recruitment process. Thereafter, he was promoted as Administrative Officer on the basis of selection held in the month of May, 1998 and as Deputy Manager in the month of August, 2009. The next promotion for which he is entitled is the post of Manager (Scale-IV). This promotion is made on the basis of written examination, annual performance appraisal reports and seniority. 5. It has been averred in the writ petition that as per the Promotion Policy, the employee after working three years on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Scale-IV). This promotion is made on the basis of written examination, annual performance appraisal reports and seniority. 5. It has been averred in the writ petition that as per the Promotion Policy, the employee after working three years on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Scale-IV). The petitioner having been promoted on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) in the month of August, 2009, he has become eligible in August, 2012 for promotion as he has completed three years of service on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III). It has been pointed out that he could only be considered for promotion in 2014 when his batch of 2009 was considered for promotion to the post of Manager (Scale-IV). 6. According to the petitioner, the result of promotion of his batch was declared on 29/05/2014 in which his name was missing, therefore, he immediately preferred a representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 13.06.2014 through proper channel as well as through e-mail directly but no heed was paid compelling the petitioner to question the action of the department in not promoting him on the post of Manager by filing Writ Petition No. 7631/(S/B) of 2016 (Pankaj Prakash v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.). During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, bearing No. 7631 (S/B) of 2016, the promotion exercises for financial year 2016-17 and 2017-18 were completed in the month of July, 2016 and October, 2017 respectively, but once again the petitioner was illegally denied promotion. 7. According to the petitioner, the criteria of promotion is merit-cum-seniority, and candidates are selected on the basis of overall ranking obtained under the parameters of merit as adjudicated by the score in written test, work record and interview as well as seniority. According to him, the system of placing select list before Departmental Promotion Committee does not apply in United India Insurance Company Ltd. as is evident from perusal of the Promotion Policy of Officers-2006 and subsequent amendments thereafter. 8. It has been averred in the writ petition that the concession in promotion being given illegally to all SC/ST Officers in terms of lower qualifying marks for them in written test since inception of Promotion Policy of Officers, 2006, is in violation of DOPT/DFS Circulars. 8. It has been averred in the writ petition that the concession in promotion being given illegally to all SC/ST Officers in terms of lower qualifying marks for them in written test since inception of Promotion Policy of Officers, 2006, is in violation of DOPT/DFS Circulars. The passing/qualifying marks for SC/ST Officers are 31.50 (earlier 45) as against (earlier 50) for General Category Officers out of 100 marks in written test. 9. According to the petitioner, prior to 2015, there was no provision of interview for promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV. The manipulations were made through changing the ratings upwards and downwards in Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) in the name of inconsistencies and exaggeration in APAR without communicating the same to the Officer. Thus, by means of second amendment application in the present writ petition, the excessive discretion in interview, favouritism and arbitrariness were challenged and brought to the notice of the Court. Which is evident from the marks of ten Officers disclosed in counter affidavit filed by the respondent-company in the present writ petition. As such by way of second amendment application, the petitioner has sought quashing of provision of interview and alternatively, sought that this Court may direct fixation of appropriate percentage of interview marks in relation to written examination marks. 10. Submission of the petitioner, who appeared in person, is that in promotion exercise started in the year 2016-17, the mala fide intention of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. in promoting persons of their liking is further more evident from the promotion of the one officer, namely, Sri Chunna Lal against whom a vigilance case was already registered in October, 2015 and who was issued charge sheet after three months of his promotion in violation of the guidelines of Company and also of Central Vigilance Commission. Further Shri Chunna Lal, though junior to the petitioner, scored only 31.53 marks in written test and promoted under List B (seniority channel) misusing the provision of interview by awarding unduly high marks in interview to enable him to reach cut off marks. Therefore, promotion of Sri Chunna Lal is liable to be quashed and petitioner deserves to be promoted in promotion exercise 2016-17. 11. Therefore, promotion of Sri Chunna Lal is liable to be quashed and petitioner deserves to be promoted in promotion exercise 2016-17. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted that United India Insurance Company is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and wholly owned by the Government of India. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. along with the three others wholly Government-owned Companies, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd., the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. are engaged in the transaction of non-life insurance business. In addition to these four Government Companies, the General Insurance Corporation of India, which is engaged in the transaction of re-insurance business, is also wholly owned by the Government of India. It is submitted that all these five companies function, inter alia, under the provisions of General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. 12. It has been argued that upto the year 2000, all four non-life Government Insurance Companies named above functioned as subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India. However, in the year 2000, the Government of India, following the policy of opening up of economy since 1991 in phased manner, decided to open up the insurance sector also to private players. Pursuant to the decision, the Central Government de-linked the four Government owned non-Life Insurance Companies including United India Insurance Company Ltd. from the superintending control of General Insurance Corporation of India and making these four companies report to Government directly. 13. Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that in the year 2006, after facing competition from the private players for almost six years, the Public Sector Insurance Companies decided to review their systems and producers in various functional areas with a view to effectively combat the competition in the open market. It is stated that the same also included a review of their HR policies and practices. One of the outcome of such review of the HR system was formulation of a new Promotion Policy for Officers of these five companies to address their changing requirements in the contemporary scenario. Therefore, a new promotion policy known as Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 was formulated jointly by the four Public Sector Insurance Company with due deliberations facilitated by GIPSA (GIPSA is a forum for discussion on the common issue amongst the General Insurance Public Sector Companies). 14. Therefore, a new promotion policy known as Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 was formulated jointly by the four Public Sector Insurance Company with due deliberations facilitated by GIPSA (GIPSA is a forum for discussion on the common issue amongst the General Insurance Public Sector Companies). 14. It is submitted that the said Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 after being adopted by the Boards of the respective Companies, came into force with effect from 2.2.2007 in all the four Public Sector Insurance Companies. The relevant paragraphs of the said Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 are reproduced herein below:-- "7. Board Promotion Policy criteria for Promotion: 7.1 The organizational needs, by ways of Promotion of Officers from one scale to other, shall be fulfilled in such manner that merit is appropriately recognized while seniority is duly respected to the extent consistent with efficiency of the organization. 7.2 While promotions to Scale-VI and Scale-VII shall be based on sole criterion of merit; promotion up to Scale-V shall be based on overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying bench mark prescribed under para 9. 15. Special provisions for SC/ST Officers: The guidelines/directions/administrative instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India on the subject, as received by the Company from its administrative Ministry, from time to time shall be deemed to be a part of this policy and given effect accordingly, mutatis - mutandis." 15. Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that as per para 7.2 of the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006, the promotion up to Scale - V shall be based on overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying bench mark prescribed under para 9. The promotion up to Scale-V shall be based on overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for measuring merit and seniority and employees of the Company are aware about the said procedure. 16. With regard to representation of the petitioner, Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the promotion are conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 and the allegation that the Junior Officers with lesser marks have been promoted is wholly incorrect and misleading. It is submitted that the promotions are based on the parameters of seniority, work record and marks in the qualifying examination. It is submitted that the promotions are based on the parameters of seniority, work record and marks in the qualifying examination. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the cut-off marks in all the three channels of promotion i.e. Normal Channel, Seniority Channel and Fast Track Channel. 17. The Counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted that the promotion are conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Promotion Policy of Officers, 2006 and complying with the DOPT guidelines, including those relating to SC/ST Officers. The Promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV is based on the Parameters of marks in the qualifying examination, seniority, work record and interview. According to the respondent, vide 8th Amendment the interview was introduced in Normal Channel of Promotion from Scales-III to IV. 18. It is submitted that para 10.2.1 of the Promotion Policy for Officer, 2006 inter alia provides that system of interview may be introduced for promotion for other cadres also, subject to suitable adjustment of weight age in numerical marking from the date as may be deemed necessary and approved by the Board of the Company. Amendment to the Promotion Policy has been carried out at GISPA after due deliberations with the Officers Association and the interview which was available for promotion from Scale-IV and above has been extended to cover Scale-III also. 19. With regards to allegations of misuse of interview marks for vested interests, it is submitted that these allegations are after thought and unfounded. The interview carries a weightage of 15% only, which same cannot be a ground to assume that interview is used as a tool to benefit favourite. Even otherwise, interview is conducted by the interview Board consisting of senior Level officers, who assess the candidates and awards marks based on the individual performance. It is submitted that the Promotion Policy provides two channel of promotion i.e. Normal and Fast Track Channel. Para 14-A of the promotion policy for officer dealing with Fast Track Channel, which provides that 20% of vacancy as determined under para 6 of the policy for a financial year for promotion to Scale-II, Scale III and Scale-IV in the company shall be embarked for being filled up through Fast Track Channel and the remaining vacancy shall be available for Normal Channel. Under Normal Channel 75% of the remaining vacancies are filled through merit (Called list A) and balance 25% vacancies are to be filled through merit (called list B), which is without written test marks. Para 14 of the promotion policy provides for Normal Channel. It is submitted that proviso was added in para 9.2.1 vide 4th amendment in the promotion policy which inter alia states that the promotional exercise for the year 2011-12, an officer who qualifies in a written test for consideration for promotion for a particular year but after reckoning of appraisal under the relevant parameters as included in para 14, fails to be included in the promotion list for that particular year publish under the provision of para 14, shall, irrespective of his qualifying in the written test for the respective promotional exercise thereafter, be included in the promotional process for the next two promotional exercises, in which he is included in the zone of consideration in terms of para 8, for the set of promotions determined under clause (b) of para 14.2 of these exercise, along with other being reckoned for the said set of Promotions. 20. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that this promotion exercise is conducted in terms of the Promotion Policy for the Officers, 2006. Para 7.1 of the promotion policy, which clearly provides that promotions up to Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking obtained under the various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying the benchmark prescribed under para 9. Hence allegations are per se untenable and without substance. The selection is based on the parameters written test, APAR, Seniority and interview which is cumulatively contributed based on the weightage as prescribed in the Promotion Policy. Therefore, relatively higher score in written test or being a senior in the batch by itself would not be the sole criteria for promotion as other parameters also carry relative weightage. His submission is that action of the opposite parties is in accordance with Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution as the promotion exercise was conducted strictly in terms of Promotion Policy-2006 as amended from time-to-time. 21. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 22. His submission is that action of the opposite parties is in accordance with Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution as the promotion exercise was conducted strictly in terms of Promotion Policy-2006 as amended from time-to-time. 21. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 22. At the out set it is relevant to refer clause 14.2 of the Promotion Policy For Officers, 2006, which says "(a) The Officers shall be ranked in descending order of total marks obtained under the reckoning parameters and from the top of the said list a number equivalent to 75% (fraction of 0.5 and above being taken as 1) of the vacancies shall be taken out to constitute one part of the promotion list. (b) Thereafter, the remaining Officers shall be re-ranked in descending order of total marks obtained under the reckoning parameters (excluding the score in the written test) and from top of the said list a number equivalent to the balance number of vacancies. 23. There is no dispute to the fact that promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV is based on the Parameters of marks in the qualifying examination, seniority, work record and interview. It is also not in dispute that vide 8th Amendment the interview was introduced in, Normal Channel of Promotion from Scale-III to IV. From the record it comes out it is submitted that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the cut-off marks in all the three channels of promotion i.e. Normal Channel, Seniority Channel and Fast Track Channel. 24. It is apt to mention that the action of the Insurance Company in not promoting the petitioner on the post of Manager though his juniors were promoted on 29.5.2014 has been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 7631 (S/B) of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2016, dismissed the writ petition as the Division Bench did not find the allegation of the petitioner to be true. Against the order dated 6.10.2016, the petitioner has filed review application, bearing No. 103173 of 2016, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2017. The petitioner has admitted the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been challenged by him before the higher forum. Thus, the judgment and orders dated 6.10.2016 and 17.1.2017 have attained finality. Against the order dated 6.10.2016, the petitioner has filed review application, bearing No. 103173 of 2016, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2017. The petitioner has admitted the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been challenged by him before the higher forum. Thus, the judgment and orders dated 6.10.2016 and 17.1.2017 have attained finality. In these backgrounds, it is clear that the issue of non-promotion of the petitioner on the post of Manager (Scale-IV) has set at rest, therefore, the plea of the petitioner challenging the issue of promotion for the year 2014-2015 is not sustainable. 25. So far as the other issues raised by the petitioner with regard to promotional exercise for the subsequent years i.e. 2015-2016, 2016-17 by misinterpreting DOPT Circular dated 7.6.2013 and DFS circular dated 18.2.2014 as well as non-compliance of DOPT Circular dated 14.5.2009 and DFS Circular dated 19.10.2012 are concerned, the Apex Court in Review Petition (C) No. 891 of 2015 in re: Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015 : Chairman & Managing Director Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & others, decided on 8.1.2016 ( AIR 2016 SC 326 ), has discussed the validity of the circular and held that the Office Memorandum clears the doubt that the said provision is only a concession and not reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates. Thus, the plea of the opposite parties that impugned circular dated 18.2.2014 is valid and the same cannot be challenged, is justifiable and the plea of the petitioner in this regard is rejected. 26. Another assertion of the petitioner is that the DOPT/DFS circulars are being deliberately mis-interpreted and applied in such a manner to give effect to reservation in promotion. According to the petitioner, DOPT/DFS circulars related to concessions to SC/ST employees in promotions are meant for including those SC/ST Officers in the select list, who are senior enough so as to be within the vacancies. Here, it would not out of place to mention here that this Court has summoned the record of the promotion exercise 2015-2016 and the petitioner has also inspected the relevant record but he has failed to point out any discrepancy in the record. 27. Here, it would not out of place to mention here that this Court has summoned the record of the promotion exercise 2015-2016 and the petitioner has also inspected the relevant record but he has failed to point out any discrepancy in the record. 27. We also find force in the submission of the Insurance Company that circular dated 18.2.2014 is not in derogation to the law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India : (2006) 8 SCC 212 : ( AIR 2007 SC 71 ). The Apex Court in Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & others (Review Petition (Civil) No. 891 of 2015 in re : Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015, decided on 8.1.2016): ( AIR 2016 SC 326 ), has discussed the validity of the said circular and held that the OM specifically clears the doubt that the aforesaid provision is only a concession and not reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates, hence, the impugned circular dated 18.2.2014 is valid and the same cannot be challenged. 28. On due consideration, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to show any illegality and infirmity in the exercise of promotion, therefore, the plea of the petitioner in this respect is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.