MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed on 10. 2. 1993 whereby the learned single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition upholding the promotions granted to respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 as also the denial of the same to the petitioner/appellant herein.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner had challenged his position in the list which had been prepared for granting promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the United India Insurance Company Limited on the plea that his ranking in the list had not been correctly assigned as he had higher marks in the pre-interview stage than the respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. It is an admitted position that the promotions had to be granted on the basis of marks awarded which had been divided into two parts-72 marks were assigned for pre-interview ranking which were on the basis of seniority, qualification and performance appraisal and 20 marks for confidential report. Thus, in all total marks determined for the same was 100 out of which the marks had to be awarded. The petitioner's grievance before the learned single Judge as also before this Court is that although he had been granted higher ranking in the pre-interview stage, his position after the interview was pushed down. It was also contended that the respondents No. 5 Singh Bhati, No. 6 Dinesh Kumar Goyal, No. 7 Jain G. M. , No. 8 Chandra Deep Singh, No. 9 Jamil Ahmad Abbasi and No. 10 M. K. Gupta although were lower in merit than the petitioner, they were granted promotions to the exclusion of the appellant/petitioner who was excluded from the list of such candidates who were found fit for promotion. The learned Single Judge, however, was pleased to reject the writ petition which had been preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein as it was held that there was no legal infirmity in granting promotions to the respondents as the petitioner was not eligible as per the criteria fixed and the marks awarded to him. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhardwaj has urged that the petitioner having been granted higher position at the pre- interview stage, his ranking could not have been pushed down after the interview was held.
(3.) WE find no substance in this contention for even if it be accepted as correct that he was placed higher in the contingency list which was prepared prior to holding of the interview, the same obviously was not final in nature because marks were also to be awarded in the interview which had to be included with the marks awarded on other counts. It is quite possible that marks granted in the interview could have played its subjective role before the interview Board while assessing the general suitability of the candidate apart from his performance in other respects, but the same cannot be treated as a ground to plead on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that he should have been placed higher even after the interview stage, merely because he had been placed higher at the pre-interview stage. If this contention were to be accepted as correct, the entire purpose of the interview would be rendered nugatory and a meaningless exercise. The counsel for the appellant/petitioner has further urged that the petitioner has suffered discrimination at the instance of the competent authorities while denying promotion to him as respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were lower in merit than the appellant. We had, therefore, directed the respondents to summon the record in this regard which was placed before us and we have perused the same. Having examined the record, we have noticed that all the candidates who are impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 to 10 are higher in merit than the appellant when the marks recorded in their grand total column are noticed and the petitioner has secured lower marks than the other selected candidates including the respondents; thus his allegation appears to be wholly unfounded and has no basis whatsoever to support his claim. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that he should have been placed higher on the merit list than the other selected candidates who are respondents herein merely because he was higher on the contingency list which was prepared prior to holding of the interview, cannot be considered as a substantial ground to challenge the promotions which have been granted in the year 1991. We, thus, find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal, consequently, stands dismissed. . ;