Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bingumalla Venkata Ramanaiah, an employee of Coal India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the respondents (Coal India Limited and Western Coalfields Limited) in not issuing a relieving order despite his name being included in the list of employees promoted. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to issue the relieving order and grant him the promotion. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner's promotion was subject to vigilance clearance, which was withheld due to pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges against him. The court examined the Office Memorandums dated 12.09.2002 issued by Coal India Limited and 28.03.2002 issued by the Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission, which outline the sealed cover procedure for cases where vigilance clearance is to be withheld. The court noted that the right of promotion is not absolute and is based on service terms and conditions, with the employer having the discretion to assess merit. However, employees have a right to be considered for promotion. The court found that the respondents had not acted arbitrarily and that the petitioner's case fell within the categories where vigilance clearance could be withheld. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Right to Promotion - Promotion is not an absolute right; employer has discretion to assess merit based on service terms and conditions, especially when criteria is merit-cum-seniority. The concept and purpose of assessing material regarding merit is within the purview of the employer. However, employees have a say if the employer fails to consider their merit or denies the right to be considered for promotion. (Paras 3) B) Service Law - Vigilance Clearance - Sealed Cover Procedure - The Office Memorandums dated 12.09.2002 (Coal India Limited) and 28.03.2002 (Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission) deal with information required to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee to enable the sealed cover procedure in specified cases, including government servants under suspension, those against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate proceedings, and those against whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or sanction for prosecution has been issued. (Paras 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has a right to be issued a relieving order and promoted despite the respondents withholding vigilance clearance due to pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion is not an absolute right
- employer has discretion to assess merit
- sealed cover procedure for vigilance cases
- right to be considered for promotion is distinct from right to promotion
