K. SAMANTARAY versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 12-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. SAMANT ARA Y 
A 
v. 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Seniority-Promotion-Policy for Officers-Seniority-cum-merit and 
merit-cum seniority-Difference between-Officer found unsuitable for 
promotion-Representation rejected-Writ petition filed on the ground 
that policy overlooked principle of seniority-cum-merit and laid undue 
stress on merit dismissed-Correctness of-Held : In seniority-cum-merit 
greater emphasis is laid on seniority while in merit-cum-seniority merit is 
c 
the determinative fa..:tor-But as one goes higher in the ladder of promotional 
posts seniority loses importance and merit gets primacy-The promotion D 
policy laid stress not only on seniority but also on merit as well as other 
relevant aspects-Thus decision of High Court upheld. 
The appellant was working as an Administrative Officer in the 
respondent-company. The respondent promulgated a "Promotion Policy E 
for Officers". The appellant was not found suitable for promotion and 
his representation to the chairman of the Management Committee was 
rejected. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the principle of F 
seniority-cum-merit was given a go-by and undue stress was placed on 
merit. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that on a reading 
of the whole policy it was clear that seniority-cum-merit was not the G 
only criterion for granting promotion. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. In all services, whether public or private there is 
invariably a hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower H 
669 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A posts. Promotion, as understood under the Service Law Jurisprudence, 
is advancement in rank, grade or both and no employee has a right to be 
promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion. [673-C, DJ 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1910 
B and Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees 
Association (Regd) v. Union of India & Ors., [1990) Supp. SCC 350, 
referred to. 
2. The principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority 
are conceptually different. For the former, greater emphasis is laid on 
C seniority, though it is not the determinative factor, while in the latter 
merit is the determinative factor. [673-H, 674-A) 
State of Mysore v. Syed Mahamood, AIR (1968) SC 1113, referred 
to. 
D 
3. The "Promotion Policy for Officers" shows the service structure 
like a pyramid. The higher one goes in the ladder of promotional posts 
remarkably the seniority loses importance, and merit gets primacy. 
[675-G) 
4. While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is always 
E open to the employer to specify the area and parameter of weightage 
to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately so long as the 
policy is not a colourable exercise of power. [676-8) 
B. V Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, [1998) 6 SCC 720, held inapplicable. 
F 
5.1. In the case at hand, prior to the formulation of policy, certain 
guidelines existed and the objectives of the policy were to rationalize 
and codify the existing guidelines relating to promotions within the 
Officers cadre. There is no statutory rule operating. It is for the 
employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion, the same pertaining 
G really to the area of policy making. It was, therefore, permissible for 
the respondent to have its own criteria for adjudging claims on the 
principle of seniority-cum-merit giving primacy to merit as well, 
depending upon the class, category and nature of posts in the 
hierarchy of administration and the requirements of efficiency for such 
H posts. (676-D, E] 
K.SAMANTARAYv. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 
671 
5.2. A reading of the whole policy reveals that stress was not on A 
seniority alone and weightage was sought to be imposed on merit and 
other relevant aspects also. (676-F] 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7280 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J. C. No. 6532 of 1992. 
Y asobant Das, Arvind Kumar Tiwari and Sudarsh Menon for the 
B 
Appellant. 
C 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General and Remeshwar Prasad 
Goyal for the Respondent. 
The Jud;?;ment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. 
D 
Whether promotion

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