- (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent no.1/State Trading Corporation of India Limited, seeks the relief of grant of promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Deputy Marketing Manager with effect from the date when he became eligible for the same.
(2.) A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner relies upon the 1986 and 1988 promotion policies of the respondent no.1. A reference to the 1986 promotion policy no doubt states that promotion would be time bound and with respect to promotion from Assistant Manager to a higher post of Deputy Manager there would additionally be the requirement of six years working experience as Assistant Manager. The same 1986 policy however in para 5 states that promotion has to be on "seniority-cum-fitness" basis. This aspect of "seniority-cum-fitness" issue with respect to promotion is reiterated in 1988 policy in para 1.1 which states that provisions of existing policy for time bound promotion will continue i.e promotion will be time bound but subject to seniority-cum-fitness.
(3.) The petitioner was informed by the letter of the respondent no.1 dated 20.9.2000 that petitioner was considered by the DPC but petitioner was not granted promotion because as per its service records the DPC did not find him fit for promotion as he did not meet the laid down promotion norms. Petitioner therefore was required to aver as to what were the laid down promotion norms with respect to fitness so that his promotion can take place from an Assistant Manager to a Deputy Manager. Petitioner however has not stated the fitness norms either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit. Though the respondent no.1 in its counter-affidavit is equally vague by simply stating that the required laid down norms have not been met by the petitioner for promotion, however, it is the petitioner who approaches the Court and it is therefore the petitioner who has to satisfy as to how the laid down norms with respect to fitness are met by the petitioner. I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that merely on completion of a particular period of years of service there is an entitlement to automatic promotion. If I accept the argument, it will be destructive of the requirement of principle of "seniority-cum-fitness", and which is required by the 1986 and 1988 policies of the respondent no.1.;