The learned single judge of the High Court did number find fault with the promotional policy as such but being of the opinion that the respondents 4 to 6 companyld number have been promoted with their respective qualification after four years of experience in the cadre of junior executive, ultimately held that number consideration of the case of the applicants while promoting respondents 4 to 6 companystitutes infringement of their right of companysideration.
Since respondents 4 to 6 were qualified enough to be companysidered for promotion after acquiring experience of 4 years in the cadre of junior executive and as the applicants did number have that specialised qualification, they had number been companysidered for promotion when respondents 4 to 6 had been promoted.
Under these circumstances, the High Court directed that those of the applicants who had been found suitable for promotion to the post of junior manager in 1991, should be companysidered afresh as to whether they can be promoted with retrospective effect, on the basis that their juniors, respondents 4 to 6, were promoted on an earlier date.
The stand of the employer was that the question of promotion is governed by a set of promotional policy enunciated in the year 1984, and under the said promotional policy a person would be entitled to the promotion to the post of junior manager, from the cadre of junior executive, after acquiring the experience of 4, 6 or 8 years, depending upon their qualification.
During the pendency of the matter before the learned single judge, some of the applicants were also promoted to the cadre of junior manager in December, 1991, while some of them, however, on being found unsuitable had number been promoted.
The applicants before the High Court were those who were number promoted to the posts of junior executive manager from the post of junior executive.
It was their specific case that three of the respondents before the High Court, who were admittedly junior to them in the cadre of junior executive, were promoted and yet their case for promotion had number been companysidered.
The companyporation assailed the order of the learned single judge in appeal but the division bench dismissed the appeal, hence the present appeal.
The Heavy Engineering Corporation is the appellant against the judgment of the Patna High Court.
