ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. versus NARASINGHA CHARAN MOHANTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 09-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NARASINGHA CHARAN MOHANTY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, I 998 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service law-Promotion-Right to be considered/or promotion-Under 
relevant Rule, merit and suitability being criteria for promotion to the post 
B 
of Manager-Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of C 
respondent along with others for promotion but did not find him suitable--
Respondent approaching the High Court which directed the employer to 
reconsider the case of the respondent-Held, not justified-Orissa Small 
Industries Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1979-Rule 24-Constitution 
of India, 1950 Article 226-lnterference in service matters-Promotion. 
Respondent had been appointed as Assistant Manager in the appellant 
company and later on his services stood terminated. The said order of 
termination was challenged by the respondent before the High Court, which 
set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent 
D 
in service with all consequential relief. The respondent was reinstated and E 
granted all financial benefits as well as service benefits by way of retrospective 
promotion to the post of Joint Manager. But when the question of promotion 
to the post of Manager arose, the Departmental Promotion Committee 
considered the case of the respondent along with others but did not find him 
suitable and promoted two of his juniors to the post of Manager. The respondent 
thereafter, approached the High Court, which directed the appellant to F 
reconsider the question of promotion to the post of Manager. Hence this 
appeal 
It was contended by the appellant that the criteria for promotion to the 
post of Manager being merit and suitability as per Rule 24 of the Employees 
Service Rules, 1979 and the respondent having been considered and not G 
being found suitable for promotion, there has been no infringement of his 
constitutional rights of being considered. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: Promotion to the post of Manager is governed by Rule 24 of H 
459 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1979. 
Under the said rule the Selection Committee is required to recommend the 
suitable employee for promotion whom they consider fit. Suitability and 
merit being the criteria for promotion and the respondent having been 
considered but being found unsuitable for promotion, the constitutional rights 
B of being considered cannot be said to have been infringed. If the Departmental 
Promotion Committee has taken into consideration the fact that the 
respondent h.as not in fact served as Joint Manager though he has been 
given notional promotion to the said post and, therefore, has not gafoed the 
necessary experience, it cannot be said that the ground is an extraneous 
ground for adjudging the suitability of the person for being promoted to the 
C post of Manager. That apart, the Court is not entitled to assess the respective 
merit of the candida.tes for adjudging their suitability for being promoted and 
the only right the employee has, is a right of consideration. The said right 
of consideration not having been infringed in the present case, the High 
Court was not justified in issuing the impugned direction for reconsideration 
D of his case. [461-G-H; 462-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6972 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.94 of the Orissa High Court in 
E O.J.C. No 8342of1992. 
F 
V.C. Mahajan (J. Buthar) for P.N. Gupta for the Appellants. 
Raj Kumar Mehta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. The judgment and order dated 6.1.94 of the Orissa High 
Court passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 8342 of 1992 is being challenged 
in this appeal inter alia on the ground that the respondent having been 
·~cinsidered for promotion to the post of Manager but not promoted as he was 
G not found suitable and the criteria for promotion being merit and suitability, 
the High Court committed error in directing the appellant to reconsider the 
question of promotion to the post of Manager. It is not necessary to elaborate 
the facts. Suffice it to say that the respondent had been appointed as Assistant 
Manager in the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. on 23rd of May, 1981. 
His services stood terminated by order dated 7.11.83. The said order of 
H termination 

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