Telangana HC Disapproves APIDC's Pick-And-Choose Policy In Employee Promotion

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court voiced disapproval at the the “pick-and-choose” policy adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (APIDC) in matters of promotion and ruled that a junior employee cannot supersede seniors when promotions are governed by seniority-cum-merit to non-selection posts. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Attelli Balaraju, who joined APIDC as a Junior Stenographer in 1981 and rose through the ranks to become an Assistant Manager. It was contended that despite his undisputed seniority in the feeder cadre, he was repeatedly overlooked for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, while several of his juniors were promoted ahead of him in 1999 and again in 2007. APIDC contended that promotions were governed by the principle of seniority-cum-merit and that the petitioner had failed to secure the benchmark marks fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committees. The Corporation also raised objections on the ground of delay and laches, asserting that the petitioner had been duly considered on multiple occasions and also received all terminal and retirement benefits. Rejecting the contentions of the Corporation, Justice Bheemapaka held that the post of Deputy Manager was a non-selection post under the applicable promotion policies, where seniority is the dominant consideration and comparative merit has no role unless the senior-most eligible officer is found unsuitable. The judge noted that APIDC neither disputed the seniority of petitioner nor alleged any adverse remarks or pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The judge observed that juniors with equal or even lesser marks were promoted, exposing a selective and discriminatory application of criteria. The Judge reiterated that in promotions based on seniority-cum-merit to non-selection posts, a senior employee cannot be superseded in favour of juniors. It also held that introduction of rigid cut-off marks and selection-style evaluation by APIDC was without authority of law, and that such an approach was arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.