M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant -Corporation challenging judgment dt. 06.05.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWP No. 1724 of 2007.
2. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had quashed an order dt. 18.09.2007 issued by the appellants and directed the appellants to promote the
respondent to the post of Private Secretary (E-1) w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and thereafter to the next higher post i.e. Special Private Secretary (E-2) w.e.f.
01.04.2006. The consequential relief was also granted.
3. The respondent had approached the Court challenging the denial of promotion to him to the post of Private Secretary (E-1) w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and
thereafter to the next higher post i.e. Special Private Secretary (E-2) w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and for consequential relief, when the same had been denied
to him by the appellants by insisting that as per the Promotion Policy and Rules for NHPC Executives, the respondent should have the minimum
qualification of Graduation for promotion to the said post which falls in the Executive Category (E-I ) from the Supervisor Cadre; that he had obtained
the qualification of Graduation only in June 2005; and was, therefore, eligible for the promotion to the post of Private Secretary (E-I) w.e.f, 01.04.2006
after he had obtained the qualification.
4. The learned Single Judge however held that the requirement of possessing minimum qualification of Graduation is confined to those seeking
promotion to the Executive post E-I from the Supervisory cadre in the Finance & Accounts cadre and Personnel & Administration cadre only, but the
respondent was not in those two cadres and was forming part of the “other cadres†which included “Secretariat Personnel†as mentioned in
Clause 6 of the Promotion Policy. He, therefore, held that it was not necessary for the respondent to possess the minimum qualification of Graduation
for the purpose of being promoted to the Executive Post E-I from the Supervisory Cadre, like those in the Finance & Accounts cadre and Personnel
& Administration cadre.
5. Though learned Counsel for the appellants seeks to contend that the interpretation placed on the Policy by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and
that the action of the appellant-Corporation was correct, we do not agree with the said submission since admittedly the Promotion Policy in question
specifically categorizes all the Executives into four broad cadres such as Technical, Finance & Accounts, Personnel & Administration and others.
6. The respondent was admittedly appointed as a Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and was promoted in the respective cadre as Secretariat
Personnel-II, and was not part of the Personnel & Administration cadre. Therefore, as soon as the vacancy arose in the post of Private Secretary of
Grade E-I, he ought to have been granted the promotion and the same could not have been denied to him by the appellants.
7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
