RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. SAMYUT KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are employees of the first respondent Bank, having been appointed between 1979 and 1982. By notification dated 28. 9. 1988, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 17 read with section 29 of the Provincial Rural Banks Act, 1976 framed the "regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 ('rules' for short ). Rule 5 of the Rules provided that all vacancies should be filled up by deputation, promotion or direct recruitment, in accordance with provisions contained in the second Schedule to the Rules. Entry 7 in the Second Schedule related to recruitment to the posts of Area Manager or Senior Manager (in Scale II ). It provided that all the posts of Area Managers and Senior Managers should be filled by promotion from among the confirmed officers (in scale I) working in the bank on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It prescribed the educational qualification (graduate) and minimum period of service in the feeder cadre (eight years as an officer in the concerned regional rural bank ). It also prescribed the mode of selection by promotion as "interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years period as officers". Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 provided that the Staff Selection Committee shall follow the procedure determined by the Board for selecting candidates for appointment or promotion, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central government from time to time.

(2.) AT the 131st meeting of the Board of Directors of the first respondent bank held on 29. 11. 1996, the following procedure for promotion of officers from scale I to scale II was approved :

(3.) IT is contended by the appellants that the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit, did not contemplate prescribing of minimum qualifying marks for assessment of performance/interview, before applying the principle of seniority for promotion. It is contended that restricting the promotion to only those who secured the minimum qualifying marks, was violative of the seniority-cum-merit principle. It is further contended that even if any qualifying marks could be prescribed for assessing the minimum necessary merit required to meet the efficiency of administration, the fixation of an extremely high mark of 78 out of 100 as qualifying marks, had the effect of converting the criteria of promotion from seniority-cum-merit to merit-cum-seniority. The appellants placed strong reliance on the decisions of this Court in B. V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu [1998 (6) SCC 720] and Bhagwandas Tiwari v. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank [2006 (12) SCC 574] in support of their contentions.