- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for challenging Annex. 11, whereby the respondents published ranking list of employees for promotion to the cadre of Assistant, with the specific prayer to annul the same. Apart from the aforesaid prayer, the petitioner has also sought a declaration that Circular dated 26th of September 2011 (Annex. 12) is not applicable vis-a-vis the facts of the instant case, and/or in the alternative the same may be quashed and set aside to the extent it debars the petitioner from being considered for promotion in the cadre of Assistant. Some other ancillary reliefs are also incorporated in the prayer clause. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that at the inception of his service career, the petitioner was appointed as a subordinate staff with the respondent insurance Company in the month of September 1991 after acquiring qualification upto 8th standard. While serving the respondent, petitioner was keen to pursue his graduation course, and therefore, he made an endeavor to seek permission from the respondents by way of submitting an application in the year 1997. In his application, the petitioner has made it clear that he wants to pursue his graduation course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), and the permission sought for was granted to him. After due permission, petitioner undertook the entrance test known as Bachelor's Preparatory Programme (BPP), as the same is pre-requisite for those individuals who have not passed 10th and 12th standard at school level. On successful completion of BPP Entrance Examination in the year 1998, the petitioner started his degree course of Bachelor of Arts and completed it successfully in the year 2005. The IGNOU, thereupon, issued requisite mark sheet and certificate to the petitioner.
(2.) The Insurance Company floated the Promotion Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 2008 (for short 'Policy of 2008') offering advancement in the service career to the employees working in the cadres of supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff, which was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent Company. In adherence of the Policy of 2008, taking into account eligibility of the petitioner, his name figured in the panel prepared for the purpose of promotion in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, but his candidature did not find favour for promotion due to pendency of departmental enquiry. This enquiry ultimately resulted in indictment of the petitioner and he was awarded punishment of reduction in basic pay by three steps in the time scale by an order passed in March 2011. Being aggrieved of the said punishment, petitioner approached the appellate authority but so far the appeal remains inconclusive and nothing has turned out. The endeavor of the petitioner by referring to the panel for these three years is that his name was included in the panel amongst the candidates eligible for promotion in the cadre of Assistant. Apart from showing his eligibility for the purpose of promotion for all these three years, the petitioner has also placed on record the panel of all these three years in order to indicate that for all these three years in adherence of Para 17.2.1 of the Policy of 2008, he was granted 12 marks by treating him to be graduate. Yet again, in the year 2011, seven vacancies for unreserved category in the cadre of Assistant came into offing, and against these vacancies the petitioner offered his candidature. Considering the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion in the cadre of Assistant pursuant to the vacancies of the year 2011, he was allowed to appear in the computer proficiency and literacy test in pursuance of Para 15(b) of the Policy of 2008 on 3rd of October 2011, and on qualifying the same, his name was included in the panel. The panel was declared vide notice dated 10th of October 2011 (Annex. 8) and petitioner's name figured at Serial No. 29. In the panel Annex. 8, no marks were awarded to the petitioner for his qualifications. Ventilating his grievances against non-awarding of marks despite his qualification of graduation, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that in terms of sub-para (b) of Para. 15 of the Promotion Policy, the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been considered having qualification of graduation level, and that being so, in terms of Para 17.2.1 he should have been awarded 12 marks for his qualifications. According to the petitioner, not granting him 12 marks against his educational qualifications has downgraded his name in the panel, resulting in his lower ranking vis-a-vis the private respondents. Pointing out with clarity and precision, the petitioner has urged in the writ petition that despite his qualification of graduation, non-inclusion of 12 marks under the head "Qualifications" has seriously prejudiced his candidature, and the same has facilitated promotion in the cadre of Assistant to the private respondents. According to the petitioner, if 12 marks' under the head "Qualifications" are added, then his rank shall automatically step up over and above all the private respondents. Categorizing this sort of decision of the respondents arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioner has very specifically pleaded that the Circular dated 26th of September 2011 (Annex. 12) issued by the respondents has not properly construed and interpreted the UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the Minimum Standards of Instructions for Grant of the First Degree through Non-formal/Distance Education [for short, 'UGC Regulations 1985 (non-formal)'. As per the petitioner, Circular Annex. 12 has been issued on complete misreading of the UGC Regulations 1985 (non-formal). The petitioner's specific plea is that if the Circular' is properly construed and interpreted meaningfully, its rigor cannot have any ill-effect on the candidature of the petitioner so as to deprive him from 12 marks for his qualifications. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the same by categorizing the same as arbitrary and unreasonable in clear negation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The writ petition was contested on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4. Reply is submitted and in the return respondents has justified their action of not awarding 12 marks to the petitioner under the head "Qualification". As per the version of the respondents, the petitioner was not awarded marks for his educational qualifications in terms of Para 17.2.1 of the Policy of 2008 on the strength of his academic qualification upto 8th standard only. Refuting the averment contained in the writ petition that petitioner is having to his credit qualification of graduation, the respondents have taken a definite stand in the reply that degree of B.A. obtained by the petitioner from IGNOU is not a valid degree in terms of UGC Regulations 1985 (non-formal) framed under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Precisely, for questioning the qualification of the petitioner as Graduate, the respondents have laid emphasis that degree of B.A. from IGNOU without passing 10th and 12th standard at school level, and without successfully completing 12 years schooling, cannot make the petitioner eligible for securing 12 marks on the basis of his qualification of graduation. In substantiating their stand, the respondents have pleaded in the reply that as per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Annamalai University represented by Registrar vs. Secretary to Government Information and Tourism Department & Ors., 2009 AIR(SCW) 2087, the UGC Act shall prevail over the Open Universities Act, and as per the ratio decidendi of the said verdict, petitioner's qualification as Graduate cannot be considered as valid qualification for making him eligible to secure 12 marks under the head Educational Qualifications. Referring to the Circular dated 26th of September 2011, the respondents have submitted in the reply that the same has been issued after the judgment in Annamalai's case was rendered by the Apex Court, and as such, challenge thrown to the same cannot be sustained. The Circular refers to part of Regulation 2(1) of the UGC Regulations 1985 (non-formal), which reads as under: No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1st Degree Course through non-formal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University... With this clear stand, the respondents have defended, their action of not promoting the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant. As per respondents, the list of the candidates was declared in terms of Para 15 of the Policy of 2008, and as such, there is no infirmity in the ranking list. Defending the Circular with full emphasis, the respondents have pleaded that the same has been issued by the competent authority and there is no conflict between the Policy of 2008 and the said Circular. Reiterating their stand that the petitioner has obtained B.A. degree without passing 10th and 12th standard at school level, and without completing 12 years of schooling, his degree of B.A. obtained through distance education cannot be construed as a degree of graduation for the purpose of promotion. The promotions accorded to the private respondents in terms of Policy of 2008 were also defended by the respondents as a legitimate action.;