MANOJ MISRA, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions based on common facts by the same petitioner, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla for the respondents. The matter was also re-heard on 20.7.2012. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 26.3.1996 as an Apprentice Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Dhaulpur branch, Rajasthan. Later his services were confirmed as a Development Officer. By an Office Order dated 27.02.2008, the petitioner was directed to assume charge by or before 10.3.2008 as Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) {hereinafter referred to as ABM (S)} at Branch Nimbahera, which was a promotional post. This promotion order was to be effective from the date of joining. It appears that the petitioner did not join the promotional post within the time provided. Rather he joined as a Development Officer at CBO-II, Allahabad on 16.4.2008, pursuant to an order of transfer dated 18.2.2008. As a result, by Office Order dated 19.06.2008, the promotion order dated 27.2.2008 was canceled. Thereafter when fresh exercise for promotion to the cadre of ABM (S) was undertaken, the petitioner participated in the interview, held on 06.01.2009. In the interview so held, the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner submitted a representation on 25.03.2009 claiming that if he was found eligible for promotion in the year 2008, there was no justification not to promote him in the year 2009. It seems that this representation of the petitioner was left unattended. Later, vide circular letter dated 21.10.2009, another exercise for promotion from the post of Development Officer to the cadre of ABM (S) was notified for the year 2009-10 and the cut off date / eligibility date for consideration was fixed as 30.09.2009. In response to the circular letter dated 21.10.2009, the petitioner applied for consideration and was invited for the interview. On 08.01.2010, he participated in the interview. By Office Order dated 14.01.2010 the select list was notified wherein 101 Development Officers were found fit for promotion as ABM (S). In that list the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.97. This Office Order indicated that the petitioner would be posted as ABM (S), Varanasi Division, Varanasi. On 14.01.2010 itself, a final list of selected candidates, in the order of merit, was also notified wherein the name of the petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 50. At the bottom of the said merit-list, a note was put to the effect that if a candidate is found to have worked beyond the prescribed cost ratio applicable to him in the appraisal year falling due prior to the date of his joining as ABM (S), then the promotion of such candidate shall stand automatically canceled and he shall be reverted back as a Development Officer, without any notice. On 20.01.2010, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Manager thereby informing him about his performance for the appraisal year ending 31.12.2009, as also with regard to the basic pay and C.A. admissible to him with effect from 01.01.2010, with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation, in writing, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice with respect to the figures relating to his performance in the relevant appraisal year, as indicated in the letter. The notice indicated that the cost ratio for the appraisal year ending 31.12.2009, on the basis of annual remuneration, was found to be 183.5 % as against the prescribed 23%. The petitioner represented against the notice and requested for relieving him to join the promotional post. It further transpires that pursuant to a query under the Right to Information Act the petitioner received a copy of the communication letter dated 30.03.2010, which disclosed that the Competent Authority had upheld the decision of the Zonal Manager canceling his promotion and that his representation was also rejected. The petitioner was also informed by the Zonal Manager, vide letter dated 31.05.2010, that his promotion was subject to the condition that if he had worked beyond the prescribed cost ratio applicable to him in the appraisal year falling due prior to the date of joining as ABM (S), then the promotion would stand automatically canceled and he shall be reverted back as a Development Officer, without notice. By the said letter, the petitioner was also informed that since the cost ratio in the appraisal year January, 2009 to December, 2009 was 183.51%, therefore, the promotion to the cadre of ABM (S) stood automatically canceled. The petitioner was further informed that the Competent Authority had upheld the decision of the Zonal Manager, whereby the promotion of the petitioner was canceled. By the letter dated 31.05.2010 the petitioner was informed of his right to appeal to the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Consequently, the petitioner submitted his representation/ appeal to the Zonal Manager on 30.6.2010, but it transpires that no decision was taken. Challenging the communication dated 31.05.2010, as also the earlier communications dated 30.03.2010 and 04.05.2010, whereby the promotion of the petitioner was canceled, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53292 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner, with further prayer to quash the note appended to the promotion order dated 14.01.2010 which made the promotion subject to the prescribed cost ratio applicable to the candidate in the appraisal year falling due prior to the date of joining as ABM (S). The petitioner has also challenged the notice/order dated 20.01.2010, whereby it was found that the cost ratio for the appraisal year ending 31.12.2009, with respect to the petitioner, was 183.51 % as against the prescribed limit of 23%. A prayer has also been made to command the respondents to permit the petitioner to join as an ABM (S).
(3.) DURING the pendency of Writ Petition No. 53292 of 2010, the Senior Divisional Manager issued a notice dated 09.03.2011 to the petitioner mentioning therein that the cost-ratio applicable to the petitioner for the appraisal year ending 31.12.2010 came out to be 231.29% whereas it was 183.5% for the immediately preceding appraisal year ending 31.12.2009 and was 20.52% for the appraisal year ending 31.12.2008, therefore, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated under sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009. By the said notice, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why his services be not terminated in terms of Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, with liberty to the petitioner to point out discrepancy, if any, in the figures relating to his performance as indicated in the notice.;