Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice N. Nagareesh, dismissed the writ petition filed by a Deputy Manager of Oriental Insurance Company who challenged his non-selection to the post of Manager (Scale IV), despite being senior to 66 officers who were promoted. The Court held that once an officer is considered for promotion under a duly approved Promotion Policy, the Court cannot intervene merely because the officer failed to secure sufficient marks in the interview.
Justice Nagareesh observed:
“As long as there is no specific allegation of malafide and in the absence of violation of any rules, it may not be possible for this Court to unsettle the selection process by reversing or altering the marks in the interview awarded to various candidates.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the promotion list finalized by the company’s selection committee.
Facts
The petitioner, who had joined Oriental Insurance Company in 1988 as an Assistant, had climbed the ladder through successive promotions — becoming Senior Assistant (1997), Assistant Administrative Officer (2009), Assistant Manager (2015), and Deputy Manager (2019).
His grievance arose when, despite an unblemished 37-year service record, he was overlooked for promotion to the post of Manager (Scale IV) in 2025. The petitioner pointed out that in the Ext.P2 seniority list, he ranked 28th, yet 66 juniors were promoted under the promotion list Ext.P3, dated 8 February 2025.
He claimed that the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006 (as amended) allotted 40 marks for work record, 35 for seniority, and 25 for interview performance. The petitioner had scored 40/40 for work record and 8.04/35 for seniority, but was awarded only 9/25 in the interview, which allegedly cost him the promotion.
He further relied on his Annual Appraisal Reports (Exts.P1(a) to P1(c)), which described his performance as “outstanding” and his conduct as “exemplary,” with repeated recommendations for higher responsibilities. He contended that a marginal difference in interview marks could not negate three decades of meritorious service.
In support, he cited two Supreme Court rulings —
- Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Chak [(2013) 6 SCC 287], and
- Shriram Tomar v. Praveen Kumar Jaggi [(2019) 5 SCC 736] —
to argue that where promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, seniority must prevail once candidates meet the minimum qualifying standards.
Issues
- Whether the selection panel erred in ignoring the petitioner’s seniority and long service record.
- Whether the interview marks disproportionately influenced the selection outcome.
- Whether the High Court could judicially review the promotion process in absence of malafide or procedural violation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Promotion Policy mandates consideration of seniority-cum-merit, and once an officer meets the minimum required merit, promotions should follow seniority order. He contended that the interview process unduly diluted this principle, allowing officers with less experience to supersede him.
He stressed that his superior officers had consistently rated him “outstanding”, acknowledging his ability to handle higher responsibilities. Ignoring this cumulative assessment, he argued, was arbitrary and unjust.
It was further submitted that the difference in interview marks between the petitioner and the last selected candidate was marginal (about 7 marks), which could not reasonably justify overlooking 37 years of impeccable service. The petitioner emphasized that interviews carry inherent subjectivity and cannot outweigh long-term performance and seniority.
Reliance was placed on Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Shriram Tomar, where the Supreme Court held that once a candidate attains the minimum benchmark of merit, promotions must follow seniority, especially in the public sector context, where transparency and fairness are paramount.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Senior Counsel for the company opposed the writ petition, asserting that promotions were conducted strictly in accordance with the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006, which has been followed consistently and was never challenged by the petitioner.
It was pointed out that the petitioner’s earlier promotions were also granted under the same policy and that no allegation of malafide or bias was raised. The company argued that the Promotion Policy divides marks fairly among work record, seniority, and interview performance, ensuring a balanced evaluation system.
The respondents also highlighted that the petitioner ranked 28th, and only four officers senior to him were promoted — meaning that many senior officers also did not qualify. Hence, the selection was not arbitrary, and the petitioner’s non-selection was a natural outcome of comparative assessment.
Citing Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das [AIR 2024 SC 4609], the company argued that promotion is not a vested right but merely a right to be considered. Once consideration has been duly given under valid norms, courts cannot interfere.
Additionally, relying on Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [(2022) 12 SCC 579], the respondents contended that since the petitioner was considered and evaluated, no violation of his fundamental rights could be claimed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Promotion Policy for Officers – 2006, which assigns marks under three heads — work record (40 marks), seniority (35 marks), and interview (25 marks). The Court emphasized that unless the policy itself is challenged as arbitrary or discriminatory, judicial review cannot extend to altering marks or reassessing merit.
The Court further held that seniority-cum-merit implies that both seniority and merit must coexist, and seniority cannot be treated as the sole criterion unless expressly provided.
Referring to Rani Laxmibai and Shriram Tomar, the Court clarified that those decisions dealt with promotions to junior management posts, whereas the post in question here — Manager (Scale IV) — was a senior executive position requiring greater scrutiny of leadership, vision, and decision-making ability. Thus, those precedents were distinguishable.
Justice Nagareesh reiterated that promotion to senior managerial posts involves not only past performance but also future potential and aptitude, which are legitimately assessed through interviews.
Precedent Analysis
- Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Chak [(2013) 6 SCC 287] — Held that in cases governed by seniority-cum-merit, once minimum merit is achieved, seniority prevails. The High Court found it inapplicable here as the post was a higher managerial role requiring stricter merit evaluation.
- Shriram Tomar v. Praveen Kumar Jaggi [(2019) 5 SCC 736] — Emphasized that candidates achieving the qualifying merit threshold must be promoted in seniority order. The Court noted that this applied to junior scale posts, not senior managerial promotions.
- Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das [AIR 2024 SC 4609] — Reaffirmed that promotion is not a vested right, and only consideration for promotion is guaranteed.
- Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [(2022) 12 SCC 579] — Clarified that once a candidate is duly considered, non-selection does not constitute violation of fundamental rights.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Nagareesh noted that the petitioner had scored full marks for work record (40/40) and was given 8.04 marks for seniority, but only 9 marks in the interview, totaling 57.04. The cut-off for selection was 64.07 marks, meaning that the petitioner’s score fell short by a considerable margin.
The Court observed that interview marks were not disproportionately weighted, being only 25% of total evaluation, and hence could not be said to have dominated the process.
Further, since the petitioner neither challenged the policy nor alleged malafide, the Court found no scope to intervene.
“That the petitioner’s assessment records are excellent does not mean that the assessment records of other selected candidates are inferior. Courts cannot re-evaluate merit in absence of illegality or arbitrariness.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s case was based on assumptions and dissatisfaction, not on legal infirmities.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the promotion process was valid, transparent, and consistent with the governing policy. It reiterated that judicial interference in promotion decisions is limited to cases of mala fide intent or policy violation, neither of which existed here.
“The criteria applicable to junior posts cannot be extended to senior managerial positions. The selection process was fair, and the petitioner’s non-selection cannot be faulted.”
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot act as appellate authorities in promotion matters unless the process itself is tainted. It underscores that seniority-cum-merit does not mean seniority alone but a combination of proven merit and relative suitability.
The judgment will serve as a key precedent for public sector undertakings and government institutions in maintaining merit-based selection procedures for senior positions.
FAQs
1. Can courts interfere with promotion decisions in public sector undertakings?
Only if there is evidence of malafide, discrimination, or violation of policy. Courts do not re-evaluate marks or merit.
2. What does ‘seniority-cum-merit’ mean in promotions?
It means that while seniority is important, it must be accompanied by the minimum level of merit and performance required for higher responsibility.
3. Why did the petitioner’s seniority not secure him promotion?
Because his interview performance brought his total marks below the cut-off threshold, and there was no legal fault in the evaluation.
