Mumtaz Khan vs J & K Small Scale Industries & Others

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned counsel.

Admit. Issue notice which is accepted by Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj on behalf of respondents. He stated that the objections filed may be treated as

counter. Learned counsel for the parties stated that since pleadings are complete as such pendency of this writ petition is not in the interest of their

respective clients. In this view of the matter this writ petition has been finally heard and disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

Petitioner has made a grievance against her not having selected to the post of Private Secretary in the J&K Small Scale Industries Dev.

Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as SICOP. According to her looking to her career profile and performance besides her placement in the

seniority list of the employees of SICOP at serial Number 1, and that of the selected candidate i.e. respondent No. 3 here being not given

promotion is contrary to law. It is also her case that the Managing Director had no authority to have ordered the promotion of the respondent No.

3 and thus it is liable to be set aside. Another plea though feebly raised was that no DPC having met as such promotion being contrary to rules

needs to be quashed. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. M.K. Bhardwarj, learned counsel appearing for respondents. According to

him so far delegation of powers to Managing Director is concerned it has been duly issued. He placed reliance on AnnexureR2 with their

objections. Entry No. 22 thereof is in the following terms :

Appointments, against posts carrying pay scales the maximum of which exceeds Rs. 15,250/ (Rs. 1000035015250) revised.

Here again its legality is questioned by Mr. Goja who states that this delegation does not show as to when power was conferred upon Managing

Director. He referred to AnnexureD to the writ petition. If plea of Mr. Goja is accepted then AnnexureD itself contradicts what has been urged by

him regarding the date when it was issued. In any event when the case of the petitioner is not based either bias or malafide, this plea loses complete

significance, as such submission urged regarding the delegation of powers being not there is hereby rejected.

So far contention that no DPC had met, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj produced the original record relating to the minutes of the DPC. Its examination

shows that cases of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and one Ms. Radha were considered and rating on the basis thereof was assessed. It has

been in fact worked out. When a reference is made to it case of respondent No. 3 is based on his pure and simple merit to which no exception can

be taken. As per J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corp Ltd. (SICO) Staff Service Rules, 1977, particularly Rule 11 thereof promotions

to the post under the Corporation are to be made on the basis of ""MeritcumSeniority"" and no person shall have right to be promoted to any post

on the basis of seniority alone. This completely demolishes the plea of the petitioner based on her seniority, particularly in view of the merit

assessed on the basis of annual performance reports which are attached with the original proceedings and I have gone through those. Minutes of

DPC have also been produced which clearly suggest that the Committee headed by the Managing Director did meet and assessed the merit of all

three eligible candidates. And it was only thereafter on the basis of merit and nothing else that delegate of the Board of Directors of SICOP issued

the promotion order.

When a reference is made to the pleadings in the writ petition it is not the case of the petitioner that she has been ignored because of there being

any bias and or illwill on the part of either Managing Director or any other member of the DPC.

No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and no exception can be taken to the promotion of respondent No. 3 to

the post of Private Secretary to Managing Director which is accordingly upheld by dismissing this writ petition with no orders as to costs.

CMP No. 446/2000

No orders in view of the disposal of the main case.