GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 8 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 5:

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Zorawar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 8. Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appears for the respondent no.1.

2. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025, by which the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned selection, promotion of the private respondents and for having a review DPC, had been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

3. The appellant's case is that in terms of the Promotion Policy, as laid out in Clause 7.1, Clause 8.1, Clause 9.1.1, Clause 9.1.2, Clause 13.0.1.3 and Clause 13.1.1, the selection process for promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII of the respondent no.3 requires the following parameters to be considered :- merit and suitability, with due regard to seniority.

4. The appellant's further case is that the appellant has been superseded for promotion to Scale-VII on two occasions, i.e. in the Financial Year 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. It is the case of the appellant that in terms of the Promotion Policy for selection of candidates for promotion to Scale-VII, the parameters on which marks are to be given are as follows:

Work Record - 60 marks.

Seniority - 20 marks.

Screening - 10 marks.

Interview - 20 marks.

5. The appellant's counsel submits that when the appellant had secured 60 marks under the parameters 'Work Record', the appellant being the senior to all the private respondents except respondent nos.9 and 10, the other respondents, except for respondent nos.9 and 10, could not have been promoted over the appellant, by superseding him. Further, the appellant had been awarded 7.36 marks out of 10 under the heading 'Screening'.

6. The appellant's counsel submits that a perusal of the pleadings goes to show that the respondent no.12, during his service career, had made a loss for the insurance company. Further, the predecessor of respondent no. 12 had made a profit for the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the predecessor of the appellant had made a loss for the concerned company, while the appellant had made profits for the concerned company. As such, there was no ground for the respondents to have promoted the respondent no.12 over and above the appellant. In respect of the respondent no.9, the appellant's counsel submits that the said respondent no.9 was having a criminal case against him arising out of FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 under Section 420/34 IPC. Thus the said respondent no.9 could not have been promoted over the appellant, who did not have any criminal case against him. He also submits that as per his information, the respondent nos. 14 & 16 had secured less than 60 marks in the selection process, prior to interview. However, they were still promoted by superseding the appellant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwBdHJJ%2F1MCtu9JW9%2F%2BKxMebueTCDcq9P3YG1aqby3ot&caseno=WA/197/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010127762025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.