CHAIRMAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. S NARAYANANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS 1 and 2 in the appeal respectively are respondents 3 and 4 in O. P. No. 3014 of 1981, disposed of by the judgment dated 9th January, 1984. The respondent herein (the petitioner in the O. P.) was the Branch Manager of Calicut of the Ruby General Insurance Company which, in consequence of the nationalisation of the private insurance companies, got itself merged with the National Insurance Company Ltd. , it being one of the four nationalised general insurance companies allowed to carry on the general insurance business under the supervision and control of the National Insurance Corporation in accordance with the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Thus, the 'national' the 'oriental', the 'united India' and the 'new India' became the four instrumentalities of the Central Government to do the monopoly business of general insurance. A true copy of the scheme framed under S. 16 of the Act is Ext. P-l. In March, 1975 the designation of 'assistant Branch Secretary' was changed into 'officerin-Charge', which post the respondent-petitioner held till 1st October, 1975, At the time of merger he was to be designated Administrative Officer and he was to be appointed in that rank. Ext. P2 dated 18th August, 1975 is the copy of the letter appointing the respondent petitioner to be an Administrative Officer. Ext P4 is the copy of the letter the respondent petitioner received from the Regional Manager, Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. , in reply to his representation on the question of seniority in service. His name not having been included in the list of officers to be included in the cadre of "administrative Officers", the petitioner submitted a representation to which he received Ext. P5 letter dated 11th January, 1975 from the Chairmancum-Managing Director of the National Insurance Company Ltd. (3rd respondent in the O. P.) directing him to make a formal representation in the matter. According to the respondent-petitioner, though he submitted Ext. P6 representation dated 23rd December, 1975 and many reminders thereafter, his grievance remained without being redressed. In September, 1977 a seniority list was published by the Company and that showed respondents 4 to 15, who were juniors to the respondent-petitioner, above him, and the respondent-petitioner very much below in rank in the category of Assistant Administrative Officers compared to many who were placed above though they were juniors to him. Ext. P7 is the respondent-petitioner's representation against the provisional seniority list published in September, 1977 referred to above. On July 5, 1978 the respondent-petitioner received a communication, a true copy of which is Ext. P8, informing him that his appeal (representation) had been rejected by the Appeals Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company. The respondent-petitioner after issuing Ext. P9 lawyer's notice dated 16th May, 1981 filed the writ petition for the issue of:

(2.) THE learned Judge, who disposed of the writ petition by the judgment dated 9th January, 1984 found that the first two prayers in the writ petition could not be granted, whatever be the merits, for the simple reason that the respondent-petitioner had not been vigilant in approaching this Court. The learned Judge, however, while ] disposing of the writ petition, directed respondents 1 to 4 to promote the respondent-petitioner provisionally in the rank of Administrative Officer in the next available vacancy, in view of the circumstances that he had been continuing in the lower post for more than a decade, and many of his juniors had been allowed to steal a march over him. It was also observed that his claim for regular promotion would be considered by the Committee afresh; and if it decides to take into account the confidential records, all adverse entries should be communicated, and objections obtained and considered, before taking a decision. The learned Judge also stated that the committee would also have to state reasons for not regularising the appointment of the respondent-petitioner in the post of Administrative Officer if it was to come to that conclusion. The learned Judge further thought that it would be useful if the committee stated what it really meant by seniority-cum-meritcum-suitability. It is aggrieved by these directions and observations that this writ appeal has been filed by respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) SRI C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, the counsel for the appellants, submitted that the relief granted by the learned Judge was not sought by the petitioner in (he writ petition; and that it did not arise out of his pleadings. It was his submission that the company used to make promotions on the basis of merit-cum-suitability by a process of selection, and therefore, ad hoc promotions were not feasible. According to Shri Panicker, merit-cum-suitability was a matter of degree, and senior persons could be overlooked. It was his contention that this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not sit in judgment over the selection made by the selection committee either on the ground that many of his juniors were included in the list or on the ground that the entries in his confidential report, which had not been communicated to him, had weighed with the selection committee in deciding the issue.