http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DEBARAJ PADHI & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/09/1995

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6)  41        JT 1995 (9)   521  1995 SCALE  (5)290

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R K. VENKATASWAMI, J.      These two special leave petitions are preferred against the common  judgment and order in e.j.c. Nos. 263 and 879 of 1991 dated  13.9.1993 passed  by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.      The petitioners  who were  unsuccessful before the High Court are  the employees  of  Rourkela  Steel  Plant.  Being aggrieved  by  the  promotion  policy  and  rules  of  Steel Authority of  India Limited  (hereinafter referred to as the ’SAIL’) as  adopted in the year 1986 superseding the earlier policy holding  the field,  they challenged  the same before the  High  Court.  Incidentally  they  also  challenged  the promotions made  on the  basis  of  the  impugned  promotion policy. Be it noted, it does not appear from the judgment of the High  Court that  there was  any challenge  of promotion given to private opposite parties individually.      Before the  High Court  several contentions were raised challenging the  impugned  promotion  policy.  However,  the learned Judges while upholding the promotion policy impugned before them  made certain  directions in  paragraph  12  and observations in paragraphs 15 and 19 of their judgment.      Mr. P.P.  Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in  view of  the directions in paragraph 12 and observations made  in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the High Court judgment, fairly stated before us that he is not challenging the legality  and validity of the impugned promotion policy. Nevertheless he  wanted to challenge the promotions given to respondents 4  to 17  in one Special Leave Petition and 4 to 31 in  other/second Special  Leave Petition. When we pointed out that  no such  individual challenge  to promotion of the above mentioned  respondents was  made before the High Court and in  view of  the fact  that there is no challenge to the promotion policy  before us,  there is  no  scope  for  such contention, the  learned counsel  submitted that  before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

High Court the promotions were also challenged. As we stated earlier, promotions as a whole were challenged on the ground that promotion  policy impugned  before the  High Court  was illegal, arbitrary  and liable  to be  struck down.  If that basis does  not now  survive in view of the directions given by the  High  Court,  there  does  not  remain  any  serious challenge to  individual promotions given to the respondents mentioned above.      We may  also point  out that  in view  of the fact that individual promotions  were not  challenged, presumably  the concerned respondents  did not  appear before the High Court as well as in this Court in spite of notice. Further we find from the  judgment of the High Court that the learned Judges have gone  into the documents made available before them and recorded a finding as follows :-      "From what has been stated above, we are      satisfied that  the SAIL  has taken  all      efforts humanly  possible to  see that a      true appraisal  is made  of an executive      before he  is promoted  from the post of      Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager."      In view  of the above finding and in the absence of any other material  to hold  otherwise, we do not think there is any cause for interference.      In the  result, the  Special Leave  Petitions fail  and are, accordingly, dismissed.