ANIL KUMAR MITTAL Vs NTPC. LTD.
- Citation2025 SCC OnLine Del 9810
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A candidate who has participated in a promotion process under a particular criterion throughout multiple selection cycles, and has been unsuccessful, is thereafter precluded from challenging the validity of that same criterion, even if subsequently promoted under it. The doctrine applies where the candidate knowingly participated in the selection process with full awareness of the procedure laid down, and cannot subsequently contend that the process was unfair merely because an earlier result was not favourable. An unsubstantiated allegation of malafide in the downgrading of Annual Confidential Reports, made without specific pleadings and without naming by title the officials alleged to have acted with malicious intent, does not constitute a cognizable ground for challenging a promotion decision in writ jurisdiction, particularly where the ACRs themselves are not directly challenged. The effective date of promotion in merit-cum-seniority based promotion is governed by the promotion policy of the organisation; where that policy stipulates that promotion shall normally be effective from the date of issue of the promotion order, the promotion cannot be made effective retrospectively from an earlier date merely because other candidates junior in service were promoted at an earlier time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This petition is filed challenging the criteria of allocating forty
marks to viva-voce out of total marks of one-hundred. Further, direction is sought to promote the petitioner to the post of AGM (Grade E 7) from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 2.
While issuing notice on motion on 31.05.2017, learned counsel
for the petitioner confined the prayer to the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short „DPC‟) held in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 and gave up the challenge to DPCs held in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. 3.
The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the National
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 1 of 6
Thermal Power Corporation Limited (for short „NTPC‟) on 22.02.1993 in E2A Grade. By the year 2007, the petitioner reached E6 Grade and was posted at Faridabad. The petitioner after being eligible was considered for promotion in the DPCs held from 2011 to 2016 but was not possessing the required minimum benchmark in the Annual Confidential Reports (for short „ACR‟). The petitioner filed representations and after serving legal notice filed this petition. The petitioner was retiring on 30.06.2017 and gratis promotion to the E7 Grade was given on 01.06.2017. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the criteria of
twenty marks kept for presentation and the twenty marks kept for interview and the argument is that both the marks were to be awarded by the interviewing committee. Learned counsel submits that strategically ACRs of the petitioner were downgraded and the grading given by the reporting officer was reduced by a minor percentage to ensure that the petitioner is not promoted. The contention is that the ACRs were not communicated. Lastly, it is argued that the petitioner was promoted to the E7 Grade vide order dated 01.06.2017 but the promotion should have been w.e.f October, 2016. 5.
Per contra the promotion criteria was the merit-cum-seniority.
There was no malafide or bias in downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner and there is no challenge to the ACRs. The contention is that the petitioner participated and was promoted on the same criteria which is now being challenged and that at this stage the petitioner cannot challenge the criteria. 6.
Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. No other
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 2 of 6
contention except those noted above has been pressed. 7.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner participated in the
promotion proceedings from 2011 to 2016 continuously and impugned criteria existed throughout the aforesaid period. The petitioner was promoted in June, 2017 after consideration under the same criteria which is now being challenged. The law is well settled that a candidate after having participated in the promotion process under a particular criterion, on being unsuccessful cannot challenge the same. 7.1
Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the
Supreme Court Union of India and Ors. Vs. N.K. Sharma AIR 2024 SC 182 which held as under: “28.4. Challenging the basis of promotion after having participated in the process on consideration of promotion and having been declared unsuccessful thereunder, is not a valid ground to impugn the policy/method. Repeatedly, this court has held that such challenges cannot be allowed..................” 7.2
The Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. C Girija
and Ors. (2019) 15 SCC 633 held as under:“21. There is one more aspect of the matter, which need to be noted. The applicant was well aware that under 30% LDCE quota, out of 05 vacancies, 04 are unreserved and 01 is reserved, which was circulated by Notification dated 14-10-1999. She applied against the said bifurcated vacancies and was interviewed on 81-2001, panel of which was declared on 9-12001 and promotion was made on the same day. She having participated in the selection for promotion under 30% LDCE quota and the
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 3 of 6
bifurcation of the vacancies being part of the process of selection, it was not open for her to challenge the bifurcation of vacancies into general and reserved after taking a chance to get selected. In this context, reference is made to judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar [Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 822] . This Court after referring to several earlier judgments have laid down following in paras 13 to 18: (SCC pp. 363-64) “13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18) „18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 4 of 6
(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] .)‟ (emphasis supplied) 8.
The argument challenging the downgrading of the ACRs by the
superior authority by reducing the marks given by the reporting officer need not be dilated upon in the absence of challenge to the ACRs. Another aspect to be considered is that the malafide alleged in downgrading ACRs is a bald statement in absence of specific pleadings and no official who is alleged to have acted with mal intent is impleaded by name in the writ petition. 9.
The argument that the promotion of the petitioner on
01.06.2017 should have been from October, 2016 is ill-founded. The order of promotion dated 01.06.2017 is not under challenge in this writ petition. Moreover, the clause 3.3(c) of the promotion policy stipulates that the promotion of the executives from Grade E6 to the Grade E7 will normally be effective from the date of issue of promotion orders. The claim of the petitioner is contrary to the promotion policy. 10.
The prayer in the writ petition for seeking promotion from the
date on which the juniors to the petitioner were promoted is ill founded. No junior is arrayed as a respondent and it is not the case set up that the promotion to Grade E7 is solely on the basis of seniority.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 5 of 6
11.
No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The
petition is accordingly dismissed.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. DECEMBER 17, 2025/Pa Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5190/2017 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.12.2025 16:34:40
Page 6 of 6
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free