HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION versus JAGAT RAM & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1151 · Decided: 23-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1151 
HARYANA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 
A·. 
v. 
JAGAT RAM & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2659 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
HARYANA 
WAREHOUSING 
CORPORATION 
(OFFICERS AND STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1994: 
Regulations 6 and 8(2) - Appendix B - Clause 19 -
Promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Administration) 
- Criterion being seniority-cum-merit - Promotion made on 
B 
c 
the basis of comparative assessment of two officers and the 
officer with better service record, though junior to the other, 
0 
promoted - Held: In applying the principle of granting 
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, what is 
important is that the inter se seniority of all candidates who 
are eligible for consideration for promotion should be 
identified on the basis of length of service or on the basis of 
the seniority list as prepared, inasmuch as, it is such seniority 
E 
which gives a candidate the right to be considered for 
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit -
The 
candidate has had to be fit to discharge the duties of the 
higher post and if performance was assessed not to meet such 
a requirement, he could be passed over and those junior to 
F 
him could be promoted despite his seniority in the seniority 
list - The concept of "seniority-cum-merit" postulates the 
requirement of certain minimum merit or satisfying a 
benchmark previously fixed and, subject to fulfilling the said 
requirement, promotion is based on seniority - There is no G 
further assessment of the comparative merits of those who 
fulfil such requirement of minimum merit or satisfy the 
benchmark previously fixed - In the instant case, there is 
nothing on record to indicate that the respondent was not 
1151 
H 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A capable of discharging his functions in the promotional post 
of Assistant Manager (Administration) - Since both fulfilled 
the requirement of minimum merit and were found suitable 
for promotion and since the respondent was senior to the 
petitioner, former was entitled to be promoted on the basis of 
B seniority-cum-merit - Consequently, the promotion of the 
petitioner was liable to be set aside as was rightly done by 
the Division Bench of the High Cowt. 
SERVICE LAW: 
C 
Promotion - Concepts of 'seniority-cum-merit' and merit-
cum-seniority' - connotation of. 
Respondent no. 1 in both the special leave petitions, 
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the 
0 promotion of the petitioner (in SLP No. 451 of 2011) to the 
post of Assistant Manager (Administration) in the State 
Warhousing Corporation. The Single Judge of the High 
Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the service 
record of the petitioner was superior to that of the 
respondent and the Corporation did not commit any error 
E in promoting the petitioner. However, the Division Bench 
allowed the Letters Patent Appeal of the respondent 
holding that since the criterion for promotion to the post 
of Assistant Manager (Administration) was seniority-cum-
merit and not merit-cum-seniority, the promotion given to 
F the petitioner was not sustainable as it was made 
predominantly on the principle of merit in contravention 
of the provisions of the Haryana Warehousing 
Corporation (Officers and Staff) Regulations, 1994. 
Aggrieved, the State Warehousing Corporation and the 
G promoted employee filed the special leave petitions. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 
H 
HARYANA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION v. 1153 
JAGAT RAM & ANR. 
PER ALTAMAS KABIR. J. 
1.1 In applying the principle of granting promotion on 
the basis of seniority-cum-merit, what is important is that 
A 
the inter se seniority of all candidates who are eligible for 
consideration for promotion should be identified on the 
8 
basis of length of service or on the basis of the seniority 
list as prepared, inasmuch as, it is such seniority which 
gives a candidate a right to be considered for promotion 
on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Where the promotion 
is based on seniority-cum-merit, the officer cannot as a 
matter of right claim promotion by virtue of his seniority C 
alone, which principle is also reflected in Regulation 8(2) 
of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation (Officers and 
Staff) Regulations, 1994. Consequently, the candidate had 
to be fit to discharge the duties of the higher post and if 
performance was assessed not to meet such a D 
requireme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.