- (1.) THE appellant after retirement In 2001 has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5766 of 2002 making a grievance that in the year 1999 petitioner's juniors were promoted although he was senior and better person for promotion. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2007.' For better appreciation, the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2007 is quoted here -in -below: Heard the parties. Petitioner claims promotional benefits from E -5 to E -6 grade w.e.f. 1.2.1999. Mr. Anwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that by order dated 1.2.1999 petitioner's juniors were promoted, whereas petitioner's career was unblemished and he was senior and better than the persons promoted, in all respect. Petitioner retired in May, 2001.
(2.) THE stand of the respondent as set out in paragraph 15 of the counter -affidavit, inter alia, is as follows. Petitioner was not considered for promotion in grade E -6, as it is a selection grade for which the criteria is merit and not the seniority only. His case along with other eligible Senior Managers was placed before the Departmental Promotional Committee. After going through the service particulars, qualification, length of service, quality of experience, records of performance as reflected in Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, performance in the interview, potential overall conduct and vigilance report of individual candidates and after taking into account organization requirements, organizational Interest etc., the matter of promotion was decided. Petitioner's case was not found fit and therefore, he was not promoted. In reply to the same, petitioner has stated in rejoinder that he was superior to those who got promotion. It is settled law that an employee has got a right to be considered for promotion, but he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Admittedly, petitioner's case was considered. The specific assertion of the respondents that E -6 grade is a selection grade for which the criteria was merit and not the seniority, has not been denied by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) MR . Anwar, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Court assumed that seniority was not the criteria for promotion. Learned Counsel brought on record An -nexure -1 to the memo of appeal, which is a promotion rules for executives.;