CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) PUSHAPJIT KAUR ..Petitioner Versus GENERAL INSURANCE PUBLIC SECTOR ASSOCIATION THR CHAIRMAN AND ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on : 28.07.2026 Uploaded on : 28.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to letter dated 17.08.2016 along with amendment in the promotion policy of 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents have amended promotion policy of 2008 arbitrarily and wrongly removed the MBA qualification from paragraph 17.2.2(iii) of the said policy and wrongly inserted it in 17.2.2(i). He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner participated in the promotion exercise in the year 2017 MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -2- (under amended policy) and when she was unsuccessful, she filed the present writ petition challenging the amended policy. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed. 4. He relies on the following judgments to support his arguments:- I. Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995(3) SCC 486 II. Ashok Kumar And Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 357 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole case file with their able assistance. 6. Before proceeding further it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the written statement:- “2. That the respondent No.2 is a Public Sector General Insurance Company (PSGIC) registered under the Companies Act 1956 with its registered office at Chennai. Respondent No.3 is the Deputy General Manager posted at Head Office of the Company and has been nominated at The Promoting Authority by the competent authority as per clause 8 of the Promotion Policy. Respondent No 4 is the DGM in- Charge of Regional Office Chandigarh and respondent No. 5 is the Divisional Manager posted at Mohali Divisional office where the petitioner has been working as Senior Assistant. The company is engaged in transaction of non-life insurance business under the provisions of General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act 1972. Besides the respondent Public Sector Company, there are three other Public Sector Insurance Companies namely The National Insurance Company Ltd with its HO at Kolkata, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd with its Head Office at MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -3- New Delhi, and The New India Assurance Company Ltd with its HO at Mumbai. These companies are engaged in transaction of non-life insurance business. In addition to these four Govt. companies, the General Insurance Corporation of India which is engaged in transaction of re-insurance business in life/ non life sector. These companies transact general insurance business throughout the country through their Regional, Divisional and Branch offices. Up to 2000 the General Insurance Business was confined to the nationalized sector and these companies had monopoly in the General Insurance Market in India. After that in pursuant to the decision of Central Government of India these four PSGICs became as independent companies reporting to the central Government of India and opened the insurance market both life and non life for private players. There are 4 classes of employees in these companies known as Class I officers, Class II officers called the Development officers; Class III (Clerical staff) and Class IV (subordinate Staff). For Class III and class IV staff there is a common Rationalization Scheme notified by the Central Government while there are separate Rationalization Schemes for Class I and separate for Class II. Similarly there are separate promotion policies one each for Class I officers, Class II officers and one common for Class III and class IV staff. Apart from the above commonality prevailing amongst the five companies by virtue of Statute, there are also a host of issues on which the five companies have common interest. It is submitted that for the purpose of catering to such common interests in the year 2000 decided to create an internal forum known as "General Insurers (Public Sector) Association of India (Respondent MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -4- No.1) in short called GIPSA with all these four companies being its members. Therefore GIPSA by virtue of its creation, is purely an voluntary forum for the purpose of following deliberations and discussions amongst its four members whenever commonality of interest so warrants on matters of mutual interests so mandated to it by these companies. It is, however, not an independent legal entity, not having registered either under the registration of Societies Act under the or Companies Act or under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act or any other Statute for that matter. GIPSA administrative, does not exercise any authority- superintending. Controlling or statutory over its member companies including the respondent company. Accordingly GIPSA happens to be un-necessary party and its name deserves to be deleted from the array of the respondents. It is further submitted that with the opening of the Insurance Sector by Government of India to private players, there was competition from private players, in 2006 onwards after facing the competition from them almost for several years; decided to review their systems and procedures in various functional areas with a view to effectively combat the competition in the open market. This also included a review of their HR policies and practices which was designed earlier to suit the monolistic Nationalized Insurance Sector. One of the results of such review of PSGICS HR systems was also a formulation of New Promotion Policy for all the cadres including promotion policy for Supervisory, clerical and Subordinate (called SCS) staff, 2008 of these companies to address the changing requirements in the contemporary scenario, formulation of the said policy for SCS Staff was preceded by various rounds of discussions MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -5- with the then check of qualified Unions of class III/ IV employees of which the petitioner is a member. The petitioner belongs to Class III cadre in the respondent company and predominant function in these cadres is clerical in nature and they are governed by the Promotion Policy for SCS Staff. The employees at these levels are inter-alia expected to possess/ acquire of Insurance, Insurance Underwriting, Insurance claims etc. to serve better the needs of common insuring public. Insurance Institute of India Mumbai inter-alia conducts online examination for courses in Insurances including Licentiate, Associate ship and Fellowship of Insurance Institute of India several times in a year, which are directly helpful to our employees in acquiring knowledge of Insurance concepts, underwriting principles of various types of Insurances, practice thereof with settlement of claims. Framing of new policy was jointly deliberated by these four companies with the deliberations being coordinated/ facilitated by GIPSA and after being adopted by the Boards of the respective companies the amended promotion policy came into force in 2016 in all the four companies. Further it is submitted that the existing promotion policy the weight age for insurance qualifications of Associate ship of Insurance Institute India was hitherto found to be of lower weight age vis a vis MBA (which is also done by in- service candidates through Distance Mode). The management of the four PSGICs decided to rationalize the same. After discussion and deliberations it was decided that while MBA will continue to be treated as technical qualification, but the weight age thereof will be rationalized and allotted weight age for 5 marks at par with the Licentiate through Insurance Institute of India. The amendment was duly approved by the respective MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -6- Boards of the four companies before implementation from the promotional Exercise 2016 which was prospective for all the PSGICs.The same was made available for information of all the employees including the petitioner. AS per promotion policy, every year the promotion Exercise to be undertaken by all the companies and the whole process of promotions for all the cadres is completed by the month of October/ November including posting and transfer according to the requirement and policy of the company. No demur or objection whatsoever has been received by any of the companies and two Promotional Exercises 2016 and 2017 have already taken place and the third exercise 2018 has also been completed and the promote employees are waiting for their promotion-cum posting orders. 3. That the petitioner has accepted the amended promotion policy which has been made effective from the promotion exercise for the year 2016. She has participated in the promotion exercise in the year 2017 (under amended policy) without any demur and she was not successful. She has also participated in the ongoing promotion exercise of 2018 also and has filed the present petition only after she was unsuccessful in the competition with other employees who have performed better than the petitioner. The law is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law of Indian Airlines Corporation Employees Services Regulations 1955 holding that "Unsuccessful cannot challenge the selection after taking chance alleging that the criteria to be arbitrary or unreasonable". Since the petitioner has already taken two chances and participated and competed with other similar and equally situated employees, she cannot be allowed to allege that the amendment dated 17.08.2016 MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -7- in the promotion policy was arbitrary or discriminatory. Therefore she is estopped to raise the grievance after availing the chances. Copy of the panel of employees dated 17.09.2018 is attached as Annexure R-1 and list dated 22.10.2018 of employees selected in the promotional Exercise 2018 is attached as Annexure R-2. 4. That the petitioner has concealed the true and material fact from this Hon'ble court that she has already availed a chance for her promotion in Promotion Exercise undertaken by the applicants/respondents in 2017 in the amended promotion policy and has been unsuccessful. The petitioner did not assail the amendments which was made effective from Promotion Exercise 2016 and was accessible to public/her on intranet site of the Company and it was fully in the knowledge of the petitioner. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 5. That the promotions are made on the performance of the candidate/ employee in the area thrown open to him in competition with other similarly and equally situated employees. Moreover Promotion is not a matter of right of the employee and also non promotion is not a punishment nor can promotion be considered fundamental right that could be enforced through a writ of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India. However the employee like the petitioner is entitled to consideration of promotion in terms of laid down promotion policy along with other employees. Accordingly she applied for promotion under para 13.1 of the amended policy, her name was appeared at Sr. no. 129. She also appeared before the Interview board constituted by the competent authority as per provision of the said promotion policy. The respondents declared the result strictly as per provisions of the promotion policy. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -8- She is not entitled to challenge the same promotion policy in which she has participated was not successful.” 7. A perusal of the above shows that the petitioner participated in the promotion by accepting the amended rules and after being unsuccessful, challenged the same. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 06.02.1995 titled as Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995(3) SCC 486 held as under:- “9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dis- pute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.(AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -9- three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. ” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 06.02.1995 titled as Ashok Kumar And Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 357 held as under:- “11. The basic issue that was addressed by the Division Bench was that the appellants having participated in the fresh round of selection could not be permitted to assail the process once they were declared unsuccessful. On this aspect, a brief recapitulation of the facts would be in order. In the original process of selection, following the issuance of General order No. 204 of 2003 by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on 2 December 2003, a written examination was held on 20 April 2004 consisting of eighty five marks followed by an interview on 7 July 2004 consisting of fifteen marks. The High Court declined to approve of the selection list and issued through its Registrar (Administration), a communication dated 19 August 2004 requiring the holding of a fresh written examination carrying ninety marks in which the qualifying marks would be regarded as forty five in terms of its General letter No. 1 of 1995. Pursuant thereto, a circular was issued in the form of a new General order bearing No. 171 of 2004 on 8 October 2004 which stipulated that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court on 19 August 2004, a fresh written examination would be held carrying ninety marks (with qualifying marks as forty five) followed by an interview MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27236-2018 (O&M) -10- of ten marks. Candidates who had applied earlier were not required to apply afresh. 12.  The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.” 10. In view of the stand taken by respondents in the written statement and law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 28.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.28 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.